Dept. of Highway Safety v. Clark
Decision Date | 12 September 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 4D07-848.,4D07-848. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Petitioner, v. Elizabeth CLARK, Respondent. |
Thomas C. Mielke, Miami, for petitioner.
Michael A. Catalano of Michael A. Catalano, P.A., Miami, for respondent.
Clark's driver's license was suspended as a result of her refusal to submit to a breath test after a traffic accident which occurred in October, 2005. Clark challenged the suspension on the ground that the officer did not properly read her the statutory implied consent warnings; however, the administrative hearing officer concluded that her license was properly suspended. Clark then sought review in circuit court, which reversed her license suspension, and the state now petitions for certiorari review in this court. We deny the petition.
Section 316.1932(1)(a)1.a., Florida Statutes (2006) provides that a person who accepts the privilege of operating a motor vehicle in this state is deemed to have consented to a breath test to determine alcohol in the blood. The statute requires a law enforcement officer who reasonably believes a driver is under the influence of alcohol to advise the driver that a refusal to submit to a breath test will result in the suspension of the driver's license. Other statutory provisions such as section 316.1932(1)(c) ( ) or section 316.1933(1) ( ) authorize blood withdrawal; however, they were not applicable in this case.
Clark challenged her license suspension because the warning given her by the officer erroneously informed her that her driving privileges would be suspended if she refused to submit to a breath, blood or urine test. Chu v. State, 521 So.2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) ( ). State v. Slaney, 653 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) ( ). Citing Chu and Slaney, the circuit court reversed the administrative order suspending Clark's license, and the state seeks review by certiorari.
The primary argument advanced by the state is that Chu and Slaney were criminal cases in which the issue was whether the test results of blood withdrawal should be suppressed. The state contends that, unlike Chu and Slaney, this case involved an administrative proceeding, and cites cases from other jurisdictions holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Freeman
...authorized. We decline to apply or endorse the Fourth District's invalidation of such a warning in Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Clark, 974 So.2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We recognize, of course, that the Supreme Court of Florida may reach a different conclusion in the co......
-
Department of Highway Safety v. Nader
...some reluctance. The circuit court concluded it was bound by the Fourth District's opinion in State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Clark, 974 So.2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Judge Barton noted in each of the opinions, "But for the Clark opinion, the Court would deny the in......
-
State v. Freeman
...authorized. We decline to apply or endorse the Fourth District's invalidation of such a warning in Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Clark, 974 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We recognize, of course, that the Supreme Court of Florida may reach a different conclusion in the c......
-
Nader v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles
...argued that the implied consent warnings were improper, citing as authority the decision in State Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Clark, 974 So.2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the circuit court could reverse a license sus......