DEBORAH CARBONE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
In a certified question of great public importance, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a police officer has probable cause to believe an accident victim is suffering from serious bodily injuries under Florida law when paramedics inform the officer that the victim is unconscious and possibly suffering from neck and internal injuries. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress blood test results.
Yes. A police officer has probable cause to believe an accident victim is suffering from serious bodily injuries under section 316.1933(1) when paramedics inform the officer that the victim is unconscious and possibly suffering from serious injuries such as neck injuries and internal injuries.
[1] A police officer has probable cause to believe an accident victim is suffering from serious bodily injuries, as defined by statute, when informed by paramedics that the v…
[2] A law enforcement officer may use reasonable force to require a person to submit to a blood test if the officer has probable cause to believe the person was driving under…
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 intelligence“Notwithstanding any recognized ability to refuse to submit to the tests provided in s. 316.1932 or any recognized power to revoke the implied consent to such tests, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by or in the physical control of a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances has caused the death or serious bodily injury of a human being, such person shall submit, upon the request of a law enforcement officer, to a test of his blood”
Establishes the statutory exception to the refusal right when serious bodily injury is involved
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant rear-ended a stationary vehicle, which then collided with a third vehicle. The investigating officer detected alcohol on appellant's person …
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 Probable Cause For Blood Test cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
We have for consideration a question certified to this court by the County Court of Palm Beach County as one of great public importance pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(4) and 9.160. The question arose out of a criminal proceeding in the county court wherein appellant was charged with driving under the influence and causing injury to persons or property in violation of section 316.-193(3)(a)(l), Florida Statutes.
Appellant rear-ended a stationary vehicle, which then collided with a third vehicle. The investigating officer found appellant outside her car and he detected the odor of alcohol about her person. He also observed that she was behaving in an erratic manner. The drivers of the other cars had to be removed by paramedics and were placed in neck braces and on back boards. One of the paramedics advised the investigating officer that the victims would be taken to the hospital, that their injuries were serious, and that one of the victims was unconscious and suffering from possible internal injuries and neck and head pain. Thereafter, the officer requested a blood sample from appellant, which she refused. However, when told that a sample would be drawn forcibly, if necessary, she submitted.
In the county court proceeding, appellant moved to suppress the blood test results for the reason that the officer did not have sufficient information to meet the statutory criteria1 to justify the officer’s requiring appellant to submit to the test. The trial court denied suppression and, in due course, appellant pled nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal, and was sentenced by the court. Sentence was stayed pending review by this court by certified question, which question states:
WHETHER A POLICE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT AN ACCIDENT VICTIM IS SUFFERING FROM SERIOUS BODILY INJURIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF FLORIDA STATUTE 316.1933(1) WHERE HE IS INFORMED BY PARAMEDICS THAT THE ACCIDENT VICTIM IS UNCONSCIOUS AND POSSIBLY SUFFERING FROM NECK AND/OR OTHER UNSPECIFIED INTERNAL INJURIES.
We have considered the record, the briefs of the parties, and the certified question and answer the latter in the affirmative. Furthermore, we affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
LETTS, J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P., Associate Judge, concur. . Section 316.1933(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides:
Notwithstanding any recognized ability to refuse to submit to the tests provided in s. 316.1932 or any recognized power to revoke the implied consent to such tests, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by or in the physical control of a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances has caused the death or serious bodily injury of a human being, such person shall submit, upon the request of a law enforcement officer, to a test of his blood for the purpose of determining the c=alcoholic content thereof or the presence of chemical substances as set forth in s. 877.111 or controlled substances therein. The law enforcement officer may use reasonable force if necessary to require such person to submit to the administration of the blood test. The term "serious bodily inuury” means a physical condition which creates a substantial risk of death; serious, personal disfigurement; or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Johnson, 695 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…solicitation purposes; provided, however, that use of an accident report for purposes of publication in a newspaper or other news periodical or a radio or television broadcast shall not be construed as “commercial purpose.” . See Carbone v. State, 564 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Jackson v. State, 456 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); State v. Williams, 417 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). . See Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648 (Fla.1995); State v. Eldridge, 565 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).…
-
State v. Catt, 839 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)). To establish probable cause, an officer may rely on information provided at the scene by other law enforcement officers and by emergency personnel. Gerlitz v. State, 725 So. 2d 393, 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carbone v. State, 564 So. 2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In the case before us, the trial court found that the police had probable cause to believe that Catt was under the influence of alcoholic beverages. This finding is supported by the record. Officers Cramer and Campbell bo…
-
State v. Cesaretti, 632 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…r and the paramedics smelled alcohol on Cesaretti’s breath. We hold that the circumstances present gave the officer ample reason to believe that Cesaretti was under the influence of alcohol and had caused serious bodily injury. See Carbone v. State, 564 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Jackson. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DELL, C.J., and POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence