ROBERT EARL RIDGEWAY, ROBERT LEE GENT, PETITIONERS,
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.
Two DUI defendants challenged the denial of their motions to suppress breathalyzer test results on the grounds that mandatory monthly inspections of the breathalyzer machine had not been performed. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that the failure to timely inspect did not constitute a substantial deviation from regulations warranting invalidation of the test results.
The court held that the failure to timely inspect the breathalyzer machine did not constitute a substantial deviation from HRS rules warranting invalidation of the test results, as the testing occurred only days or weeks after the previous inspection with no evidence of the crucial significance of the delay.
[1] A breathalyzer test result is not rendered invalid by insubstantial differences between approved techniques and actual procedures, as long as the analysis was performed s…
[2] Failure to conduct a monthly inspection of a breathalyzer machine does not automatically invalidate test results if the delay is not of crucial significance and does not…
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“a chemical analysis of a person's breath must have been performed 'substantially in accordance with methods approved by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.' The statute further provides that any insubstantial differences between the approved techniques and actual procedures 'shall not render the test or test results invalid.'”
Establishes the legal standard that only substantial deviations from approved procedures invalidate breath test results.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRidgeway and Gent were separately stopped for DUI and administered breathalyzer tests. Both filed motions to suppress the test results, arguing that m…
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 Driving Under The Influence cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Petitioners Ridgeway and Gent seek certiorari review of the final order of the circuit court acting in its review capacity, pursuant to Rule 9.030(b)(2)(B), Fla.R. App.P.1 We deny the petition for certiorari in both cases.
Petitioners were separately stopped for driving under the influence (DUI) contrary to section 316.1934, Florida Statutes, and upon arrest were administered breathalyzer tests. Defense counsel filed motions to suppress the results of the tests taken, contending that mandatory inspection and maintenance of the machine required by section 316.1934(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-42.24, Florida Administrative Code, had not been performed. The county court denied the motions and petitioners were separately tried by jury and found guilty of DUI. On appeal to the circuit court, the denial of the motions was affirmed.
We agree with the circuit court’s decision that the denial of petitioners’ motions to suppress was not in error. Section 316.-1934(3) provides that a chemical analysis of a person’s breath must have been performed “substantially in accordance with methods approved by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.” The statute further provides that any insubstantial differences between the approved techniques and actual procedures “shall not render the test or test results invalid.” Rule 10D-42.24 requires monthly inspections of all breathalyzer machines. Although no monthly inspection was made of the machine in question during the month of May, petitioner Gent was administered the test on April 9, 1986, five days following the last inspection date, and only 39 days had elapsed when Ridgeway was given the test. Under the circumstances, including absence of evidence of crucial significance of the period of delay, the failure to timely inspect the machine did not constitute a substantial deviation from HRS rules which would warrant an invalidation of the test results. The petitions for certiorari review are denied. See Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1983).
MILLS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . The petitions were filed separately and were consolidated for appeal by this court sua sponte.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sydney Rochelle, 609 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…variant form adding the acetone test can be presumed reliable and are admissible in evidence. Results of breathalyzer tests obtained in [*617] substantial compliance with the approved techniques and procedures are admissible. See Ridgeway v. State, 514 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Here, use of the variant form for periodic checking of the equipment did not take the procedures employed out of substantial compliance. Cf. State v. Burke, 599 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We acknowledge that the above ana…
-
State v. Donaldson, 579 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1991)…ce of intoxicants, Donaldson was taken to a “BATmobile” where a breathalyzer test was performed. The state presented evidence of the qualifications of the breathalyzer tester and that the test was properly conducted. Misconstruing Ridgeway v. State, 514 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and believing it unnecessary to do so, the state failed to produce any evidence concerning the testing, inspection, or reliability of the machine.1 Because there was no evidence concerning the breathalyzer machine, the district…
-
State v. Reisner, 584 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…o by formally promulgating rules. The state also argues that the revised form is substantially similar to the original form, proving substantial compliance with the formal rule as for monthly checks promulgated by HRS. See Flood; Ridgeway v. State, 514 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). In Ridgeway, the check on the periodic machine was some ten days (at most) overdue. There was no evidence that this was a critical time delay, and the court held that it did not constitute substantial deviation. In Flood, expert…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)