STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID TOWNSEND A/K/A DAVID CARROLL TOWNSEND, APPELLEE
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 appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a county court's order suppressing blood alcohol test results. The court found the order did not meet the criteria for an otherwise appealable non-final order, despite the county court certifying a question of great public importance.
No, the order suppressing the blood alcohol test results is not otherwise appealable under the relevant rule, as it does not suppress pretrial confessions, admissions, or evidence obtained by search and seizure.
[1] An appellate court may lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal certified as involving a question of great public importance if the underlying order is not otherwise appealabl…
[2] A county court's order suppressing blood alcohol test results due to excessive time between arrest and blood draw does not constitute suppression of "pretrial confessions…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Although the county court has certified a question it deems of such importance, its order granting the motion in limine does not fall within Rule 9.140(c)(1)(B) as one which is “otherwise appealable.””
Establishes the core reason for lack of jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe county court granted a motion in limine, suppressing the results of a blood alcohol test. The suppression was based on the excessive time elapsed …
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 Certified Question Of Great Public Importance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The above-styled matter came before the court pursuant to Rule 9.030(b)(4)(B) and 9.140(c)(1)(B) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The question certified as one of great public importance originated in an order entered by the County Court of Polk County granting a motion in limine suppressing the results of a blood alcohol test on the ground that an excessive amount of time elapsed between the moment of the arrest and the drawing of the blood sample. On March 29, 1985, this court accepted jurisdiction. Upon further consideration, we have determined that this court is without jurisdiction and that the appeal was improvidently accepted.
Rule 9.030(b)(4)(B) permits an appeal to this court of non-final orders, otherwise appealable to the circuit court, in the circumstance where the county court certifies the question of law to be of great public importance. Although the county court has certified a question it deems of such importance, its order granting the motion in limine does not fall within Rule 9.140(c)(1)(B) as one which is “otherwise appealable.” An order “otherwise appealable” by the state and, hence, within Rule 9.140(c)(1)(B) must suppress “before trial confessions, admissions or evidence obtained by search and seizure.” The standard set forth in that rule is not met in this instance. In the face of section 316.1932, Florida Statutes, the taking of the appellee’s blood and the subsequent result were neither “pretrial confessions” or “admissions” shielded by the Fifth Amendment, South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983), nor were they “evidence obtained by search and seizure” requiring our intervention to preserve a Fourth Amendment right. See Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966).
Accordingly, this proceeding is transferred to the Circuit Court of Polk County for disposition within its certiorari jurisdiction conferred by Rule 9.030(c)(2) and (3) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983)