BARRY NELSON, 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.
Barry Nelson challenges a driver's license suspension imposed after he refused a breathalyzer test because police would not allow him to consult with an attorney first. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms that a DUI arrestee has no constitutional or statutory right to counsel before submitting to a breathalyzer test.
A defendant arrested for driving under the influence is not entitled to an opportunity to consult a lawyer prior to submitting to a breathalyzer test, and neither the Florida Constitution, the Federal Constitution, nor Florida Statutes mandate otherwise.
[1] A driver arrested for driving under the influence is not entitled to consult with an attorney before submitting to a breathalyzer test.
[2] Refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test after an arrest for driving under the influence may result in the suspension of a driver's license.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“a defendant arrested for driving under the influence is not entitled to an opportunity to consult a lawyer prior to submitting to a breathalizer test, and that neither Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution, the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, nor section 901.24, Florida Statutes mandates otherwise”
Statement of the legal rule established by both the lower court and the appellate court regarding pre-test counsel rights
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNelson was arrested for driving under the influence and asked to submit to a breathalyzer test. Before deciding whether to submit, Nelson requested an…
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 Florida Constitution Article I, Section 9 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of certiorari, Barry Nelson (Nelson) seeks review of a judgment of the Broward County Circuit Court denying a petition for writ of certiorari directed to an order of the Broward County Court, which suspended Nelson’s driver’s license pursuant to section 322.261, Florida Statutes (1983).
It appears that Nelson had been arrested for driving under the influence. He was asked to submit to a breathalizer test; however, before deciding whether to submit Nelson requested the opportunity to contact his attorney. The police declined to allow him to contact counsel, he declined to take the test, and the police treated this as a refusal to submit to the breathalizer test. This resulted in an implied consent hearing in the Broward County Court and an order suspending Nelson’s driver’s license pursuant to section 322.261, Florida Statutes. On petition for writ of certiorari the circuit court denied the writ, upholding the county court rulings that a defendant arrested for driving under the influence is not entitled to an opportunity to consult a lawyer prior to submitting to a breathalizer test, and that neither Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution, the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, nor section 901.24, Florida Statutes mandates otherwise.
We have carefully considered petitioner’s various arguments in favor of quashing the circuit court’s order under review and decline to do so. Instead, we would align ourselves with the conclusion reached in the recent decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in State v. Hoch, 500 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), which answers all of petitioner’s arguments.
Certiorari denied.
DOWNEY, LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.