City of Orlando v. Ford, 2418
| Decision Date | 27 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 2418,2418 |
| Citation | 220 So.2d 661 |
| Parties | CITY OF ORLANDO, Florida, Petitioner-Cross-Respondent, v. William FORD, Jr., Respondent-Cross-Petitioner. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph X. DuMond, Jr., Orlando, for petitioner-cross-respondent.
Robert G. Petree, of Bornstein & Petree, Orlando, for respondent-cross-petitioner.
In today's swinging world of pot and acid only the old fashioned get caught driving while under the influence of intoxicating beverages to the extent that their normal faculties are impaired. The defendant here found himself so accused and convicted but convinced the circuit judge on appeal that the arresting officer could not lawfully reach such a conclusion without knowing what the defendant's normal faculties were. The court below reversed the conviction but we must reach a different result regarding opinion testimony of Bacchanalian conduct and reinstate the judgment and sentence.
An ordinance of the City of Orlando makes it unlawful for any person to drive or be in the actual physical control of any vehicle within the city while under the influence of intoxicating liquor 'when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired.' The circuit court, on appeal from the conviction, used the following reasoning in its mandate of reversal:
The record discloses that there is no testimony given before the lower court as to what the normal faculties were of the Appellant and the extent, if any, in which they were impaired. The arresting officer and sole witness for the City freely admitted that he had not seen the Appellant prior to his arrest of Appellant, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that the police officer observed the Appellant while Appellant was possessed of his normal faculties. Therefore, there was no lawful predicate in the record for the Judgment entered by the lower court.
Although there are many cases confirming the prosecution's right to use testimony of a lay witness, 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 546(27), or a police officer, 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 866, that an accused was intoxicated, no law has been found pertaining to the 'normal faculties' phase of the question.
The city argues that to require evidence of an accused's normal faculties to be presented would effectively prevent police officers from arresting anyone for DWI except their friends and previous acquaintances. Defendant's Counsel answers that good...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Orlando v. Newell, 2615
...Cannon v. State, 1926, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360, and the circuit court erred in reversing the conviction. Cf. City of Orlando v. Ford, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 661. The writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment and mandate of the circuit court are quashed and this cause remanded to that......