MICHAEL J. VEILLEUX, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed certified questions concerning the jurisdiction of county courts over breath test suppression motions in DUI cases and whether the state could introduce breath test results when regulatory rules were inadequate. The Court held that county courts have inherent jurisdiction over evidentiary matters related to their core jurisdiction and that defendants need not exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial suppression.
The county court has jurisdiction over evidentiary matters related to its jurisdiction over traffic infractions and violations. Defendants need not exhaust administrative remedies before filing a motion to suppress, as requiring such exhaustion would violate sound public policy and interfere with the right to speedy trial. The second certified question is answered in the negative as qualified by the district court's opinion. The third question is deemed unnecessary and not addressed.
[1] A county court has jurisdiction over evidentiary matters related to traffic infractions and violations.
[2] A court has inherent power over matters reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within its jurisdiction, provided they do not conflict with valid laws or c…
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“a court has inherent power over all matters "reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction, subject to, or not in conflict with valid existing laws and constitutional provisions."”
Establishes the legal basis for county court jurisdiction over suppression motions in traffic cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael J. Veilleux was arrested for driving under the influence and administered a breath test using an Intoxilyzer 5000 machine approved under exist…
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 Administrative Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review State v. Berger, 605 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992),1 which certified three questions of great public importance:
I. DOES THE COUNTY COURT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION? MUST THE APPELLEES SEEK ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF PRIOR TO OBTAINING JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THEIR CLAIMS?
II. DOES THE FAILURE OF HRS TO PROMULGATE A RULE, AFTER PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH COULD PROVIDE A TEST FOR RELIABILITY AT THE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL INSPECTIONS PRECLUDE THE STATE’S USE OF BREATH TESTING RESULTS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL?
III. WHEN A DEFENDANT CONSENTS TO AN APPROVED CHEMICAL TEST, BUT IS GIVEN A NONAP-PROVED TEST, MAY THE STATE INTRODUCE EVIDENCE . OF THE NONAPPROVED TEST BY ESTAB- . LISHING THE TRADITIONAL PREDICATE FOR THE INTRODUCTION INTO EVIDENCE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Michael J. Veilleux was arrested for driving under the influence and received a breath test on an Intoxilyzer 5000 machine approved for use under the then-existing statutes and related administrative rules. Some of the inadequacies of the rules were discussed and addressed in our opinion in Mekl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593 (Fla.1993). The county court assumed jurisdiction over this issue when it was raised by Veilleux and suppressed the breath test results. The district court held that the county court had jurisdiction over the suppression hearing but reversed on the substantive issue. Berger, 605 So. 2d at 491.
We agree with the district court that the county court had jurisdiction over evidentiary matters related to its jurisdiction over traffic infractions and violations. As the district court noted, a court has inherent power over all matters “reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction, subject to, or not in conflict with valid existing laws and constitutional provisions.” Id. at 490 (citing Anderson v. State, 267 So. 2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1972)). We also agree that it would violate sound public policy and interfere with the right to speedy trial to require a traffic-court defendant to administratively challenge an agency rule before a motion to suppress could be considered. Id. For that reason, we answer the first part of the first certified question in the affirmative, and the second part in the negative.
As to the second issue, we find that the result reached by the district court is essentially in harmony with our opinions in Mekl and Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, we adopt the district court’s discussion of this issue below as our own, and answer the second certified question in the negative as qualified by the district court’s opinion. We find the third question unnecessary to the disposition of this case and therefore do not address it now. We remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
overton, McDonald, shaw, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. BARKETT, C.J., concurs in result only.
. Veilleux was one of several persons involved in the proceedings below. This review was brought in his name.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carino v. State, 635 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1994)…We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Initially, we disagree with the State’s argument that the county court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional challenge to the administrative rule in this case. See Veilleux v. State, 635 So. 2d 977 (Fla.1994). However, we agree with the resolution of the certified questions stated in the Fourth District’s opinion in Rochelle, 609 So. 2d at 613-618, and adopt that opinion as our own. Accord Veilleux; Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593 (Fla.1993). A…
-
Folsom v. State, 638 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1994)…PER CURIAM. We have for review State v. Folsom, 630 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), which certified for review questions essentially the same as those answered in Veilleux v. State, 635 So. 2d 977 (Fla.1994), and Carino v. State, 635 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The decision below is approved on the authority of Veilleux and Carino. The fourth issue raised by the State is moot and will not be addre…
-
Jenkins v. State, 855 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…itled to utilize the presumption of intoxication. We find, however, that in light of the unrefuted testimony concerning the reliability of the testing methods and FDLE procedures there is no reason to exclude the test results. In Veilleux v. State, 635 So. 2d 977 (Fla.1994), the supreme court was confronted with the issue of whether a change in the breath machines and the forms used to verify reliability of those machines required a rule under the APA. Id. at 977. There, the supreme court adopted the discuss…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Earnest Eugene Anderson v. State, 267 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1972)
- Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Berger, 605 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1993)