State v. Catt
| Decision Date | 31 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D02-1749.,2D02-1749. |
| Citation | 839 So.2d 757 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Tammy CATT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Suzanne Bechard, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.
Angela D. Flaherty of Syprett, Meshad, Resnick, Lieb, Dumbaugh, Jones & Krotec, Sarasota, for Appellee.
DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge.
The State appeals the trial court's order granting Tammy Catt's motion to suppress the results of a blood draw taken pursuant to section 316.1933, Florida Statutes (2001). Because the trial court's finding that the police did not have probable cause to believe that serious injury had resulted from the accident is not supported by competent, substantial evidence, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
After Catt was involved in an automobile accident, the State charged her with driving under the influence causing serious injury, driving under the influence causing property damage, and child neglect. From the limited record available to us, it appears that Catt was driving in Bradenton when she hit the back of a truck that was pulling a boat. The force of the impact caused the passenger door of Catt's vehicle to open, and Catt's toddler daughter was ejected from the vehicle, apparently because she was not in a car seat. The child hit the pavement and rolled to the side of the roadway.
Police officers and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) responded to the scene. After the EMTs had evaluated the child, they decided that she should be airlifted to Bayfront Hospital in St. Petersburg to determine the extent of her injuries. The EMTs expressed concerns about possible serious head or internal injuries. After the child was airlifted from the scene, the police ordered blood to be drawn from Catt pursuant to section 316.1933.
The State filed DUI charges against Catt after it received the results of the blood draw. Catt moved to suppress the results on the grounds that the officers at the scene did not have the necessary probable cause to order the blood draw. After a full hearing, the trial court granted Catt's motion and suppressed the results of the blood draw. The State then brought this appeal.
Section 316.1933(1), which provides for compelled blood draws under certain circumstances, states in pertinent part:
[I]f a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by or in the actual physical control of a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substances, or any controlled substances has caused the death or serious bodily injury of a human being, such person shall submit, upon the request of a law enforcement officer, to a test of the person's blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content thereof.... The term "serious bodily injury" means an injury to any person, including the driver, which consists of a physical condition that creates a substantial risk of death, serious personal disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
Thus, to order blood to be drawn pursuant to this statute, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs and that the driver had caused an accident resulting in "serious bodily injury." State v. Cesaretti, 632 So.2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
"Probable cause is a fluid concept that deals in probabilities, which include common sense conclusions by law enforcement officers." Williams v. State, 731 So.2d 48, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (). Probable cause is not the same standard as beyond a reasonable doubt, and "the facts constituting probable cause need not meet the standard of conclusiveness and probability required of the circumstantial facts upon which a conviction must be based." Williams, 731 So.2d at 50 (quoting State v. Heape, 369 So.2d 386, 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)). To establish probable cause, an officer may rely on information provided at the scene by other law enforcement officers and by emergency personnel. Gerlitz v. State, 725 So.2d 393, 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carbone v. State, 564 So.2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
In the case before us, the trial court found that the police had probable cause to believe that Catt was under the influence of alcoholic beverages. This finding is supported by the record. Officers Cramer and Campbell both testified that they smelled alcohol on Catt's breath. This testimony was sufficient to support the trial court's finding of probable cause on this issue. See State v. Brown, 725 So.2d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) ().
However, the trial court then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fils v. City of Aventura
...concept” that deals in probabilities, not certainties, and allows officers to reach common sense conclusions. See State v. Catt, 839 So.2d 757, 759 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003) (citation omitted). “[P]robable cause exists when the circumstances are sufficient to cause a reasonably cautious person to......
- Green v. State, 2D02-2430.
-
Montes-Valeton v. State, 3D12–2063.
...the blood draw was also supported by probable cause, and the motion to suppress was therefore properly denied. See State v. Catt, 839 So.2d 757, 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (finding probable cause to compel a blood draw based on a traffic accident involving serious bodily injury where the vehicl......
-
State v. Bagley
...L.Ed.2d 911(1996); Melendez v. Sheriff of Palm Beach County, 743 So.2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). As observed in State v. Catt, 839 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003): "Probable cause is a fluid concept that deals in probabilities, which include common sense conclusions by law enforcement of......