STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH A. SOWERS AND LARRY GENE JOHNSTON, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a suspected drunk driver's refusal to submit to a chemical test for intoxication can be used as evidence at trial.
[1] A suspected drunk driver's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test can be used as evidence at trial.
[2] The introduction of evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test for intoxication does not violate the U.S. …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court suppressed evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test for intoxication and declared the relevant statute unconstit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a county court order suppressing evidence in a criminal case and from the declaration in that order that Section 316.1932(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1982) is unconstitutional. Jurisdiction for our review of that order is pursuant to Rule 9.140(c), Section 26.012(1) and Section 924.08(2).
The order appealed declares the statute unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 and Section 12 of the Florida Constitution. The order “precludes the State Attorney of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit In and For Seminole County, Florida from introducing into evidence at the trial in this cause the fact that the aforesaid Defendant refused to submit to a chemical test for intoxication on or about October 14,1982 or from making any reference to said fact.”
It would be rather superfluous for us to write a detailed analytical opinion discussing the issue, and our decision regarding it, because not only has appellee “confessed error” and declined to file a brief, but the case is controlled by a U.S. Supreme Court case issued just before the trial judge s order here on appeal. In South Dakota v. Neville, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) the supreme court held that a suspected drunk driver’s refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test can be used as evidence at trial. The -introduction of the evidence is no more violative of the Florida Constitution than it is violative of the U.S. Constitution, in our opinion, and thus it is admissible at trial. Our ruling is not based upon the 1983 amendment to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, thus we have not considered whether that amendment is retroactively applied. See State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1983). Our opinion is based upon the reasoning of South Dakota v. Neville.
The order appealed is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Herring v. State, 501 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…dmissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding,” but only when the person has first been told that his failure to submit to either or both tests "will result in the suspension of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle....” See State v. Sowers, 442 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (Section 316.1932(1)(a), Florida Statutes, making refusal to submit to blood alcohol tests admissible after warning of adverse consequences, not unconstitutional under reasoning of South Dakota v. Neville). See also State v. Youn…
-
State v. Burns, 661 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ence in any criminal proceeding); Edwards v. State, 603 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (holding that the statute’s requirement that the refusal to take the test be received in evidence does not violate any constitutional privileges); State v. Sowers, 442 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (holding that a suspected drunk driver’s refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test can be used as evidence in a criminal case and its admission does not violate either the Florida Constitution or the United States Constitution).…
-
Rashawn Clark v. State, 236 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983)
- State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1983)