ROBERT G. PASTORI, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Pastori sought certiorari review of a circuit court order that reversed a county court's suppression order. The appellate court granted certiorari in part, holding that statements made after Pastori invoked his right to counsel were inadmissible under Miranda, but denied certiorari regarding the suppression of chemical breath tests and field sobriety tests, which are admissible.
The court held that field sobriety and chemical breath tests are admissible and not privileged under Florida law. However, any statements Pastori made after invoking his right to counsel and being taken into custody are inadmissible under Miranda, and any statements made for purposes of completing an accident report are privileged under Florida statute § 316.066(4).
[1] Results of field sobriety and chemical breath tests are admissible in proceedings arising from a traffic accident.
[2] Statements made by a motorist after invoking Miranda rights and while in custody are inadmissible.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“results of blood alcohol tests are not privileged since the statute only applies to communications "made by persons involved in accidents."”
Establishes that test results are not privileged under Florida law, allowing their admission into evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 25, 1983, Pastori was involved in an automobile accident in St. Petersburg. When the investigating officer arrived, Pastori was seated in hi…
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 Custodial Interrogation cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the circuit court reversing the county court’s order granting petitioner’s motion to suppress the results of chemical breath tests, field sobriety tests and any statements petitioner may have made. We grant in part and deny in part the petition for certiorari.
On August 25, 1983, petitioner, Robert G. Pastori, Jr., was involved in an automobile accident in St. Petersburg. When the investigating officer arrived on the scene, petitioner was seated in his vehicle. Pursuant to the officer’s request, petitioner exited his vehicle to sign a citation. At that point, he was read his Miranda rights and asked to perform a series of field sobriety tests. Petitioner responded by requesting an attorney. While being transported to the police station, he again asked when he could make a phone call to his attorney.
At the police station, petitioner was required to submit to a chemical breath test and additional field sobriety tests. He was then read his rights under Miranda for a second time and questioned pursuant to an alcohol influence report form. Thereupon, a second chemical breath test was administered.
Petitioner filed a motion in county court to suppress any statements he made as well as the results of the field sobriety and chemical breath tests. The court granted petitioner’s motion and the state appealed to the circuit court which reversed the county court’s order. Petitioner now seeks review in this court by certiorari. We deny certiorari as it relates to the suppression of the field sobriety and chemical breath tests, and grant certiorari in regard to any statements made by petitioner after he invoked his Miranda rights.
The case of Brackin v. Boles, 452 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1984) dealt with the admissibility of blood alcohol tests in a civil proceeding. The trial court and district court of appeal held that the results were inadmissable as being privileged under section 316.066, Florida Statutes (1981). The supreme court reversed and held that results of blood alcohol tests are not privileged since the statute only applies to communications “made by persons involved in accidents.” Brackin at 544. Further, the court held that there is no federal or state constitutional prohibition against the admissibility of a blood sample, in either criminal or civil proceedings, and that the taking of a blood sample does not violate the fourth or fifth amendment.
Thus, on the authority of Brackin, we hold that the results of the field sobriety and chemical breath tests are admissible and the circuit court was correct reversing the county court’s order in granting petitioner’s motion to suppress those tests.
However, we find that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in reversing the county court’s order suppressing petitioner’s statements because any statements which were made by petitioner after he requested an attorney and was taken into custody are inadmissible under Berkemer v. McCarty, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). In Berkemer, the Supreme Court held that mere roadside questioning of a motorist detained for a traffic stop does not constitute “custodial interrogation” for purposes of Miranda. However, if the motorist is subjected to treatment that renders him “in custody,” then he is entitled to the protection provided by Miranda.
Moreover, any statements made by petitioner to a police officer for purposes of completing an accident report would be privileged and, thus, inadmissible. Brac-kin. See § 316.066(4), Fla.Stat. (1981).
Therefore, we grant certiorari concerning the suppression of the statements made by petitioner and deny certiorari regarding the suppression of the chemical breath tests and field sobriety tests.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hoch, 500 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…deciding when the right to counsel attaches, instead of relying upon this statute, the district courts have depended instead upon the fifth and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution and the implied consent statute. In Pastori v. State, 456 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the defendant requested that he be allowed to call his attorney before taking a breath test and additional field sobriety tests. Though the opinion is not clear, apparently he was not allowed to contact his attorney and was given…
-
Norstrom v. State, 587 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…llant maintains the accident investigation continued at least until Lavoie “changed hats.” Consequently,' appellant maintains that the fact that he was given Miranda warnings did not deprive him of the statutory privilege. See also Pastori v. State, 456 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In West v. State, 553 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), this court recognized that it may be difficult for a defendant to realize when an accident investigation has ended and a criminal investigation has begun, and determined that…
-
Anderson v. Mitchell (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…that the purpose of section 316.066(4) "is to clothe with statutory immunity" the statements and communications a driver, owner, or vehicle occupant is legally required to make for the purpose of completing an accident report); Pastori v. State, 456 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) ("[A]ny statements made by petitioner to a police officer for purposes of completing an accident report would be privileged and, thus, inadmissible."); Nationwide Ins. v. Monroe, 276 So. 2d 547, 548 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…
Authorities Cited
- Berkemer v. McCARTY, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984)
- Brackin v. Boles, 452 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1984)