STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES ROBERT BETTS, 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.
A mechanical failure of a video camera during a field sobriety test does not violate a defendant's due process rights, even if there is a policy to videotape such tests.
An officer attempted to videotape a field sobriety test, but the camera malfunctioned, resulting in no tape being produced. The defendant argued this …
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.
HARRIS, Judge.
We accepted jurisdiction of this cause in order to answer a certified question. Having more fully reviewed the record, however, we find the question certified was based on an invalid premise. We therefore modify the question to read as follows.
IF THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED POLICE POLICY OF VIDEOTAPING FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, IS IT A VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHTS IF NO TAPE IS PRODUCED BECAUSE OF THE MECHANICAL FAILURE OF THE VIDEO CAMERA?
We answer this question in the negative.
We reverse the trial court because we find that Betts’ due process rights were not violated. The officer attempted to videotape the roadside sobriety test but the camera malfunctioned. No tape was created; therefore, there was no tape to preserve. State v. Powers, 555 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 563 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1990), is not implicated in this ease because the failure to produce a tape was not an intentional policy decision.
The failure of a video camera to operate, without more, does not constitute a due process violation of defendant’s rights. If the officer had intentionally caused the malfunction in order to avoid the department’s policy of videotaping, an issue not before us, a different result might be required.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bennett v. State, 23 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…iled to record the roadside field sobriety test or the digital recording system in the sheriffs office failed to preserve the recording. The circuit court reversed this order, concluding that the case was controlled by the holding in State v. Betts, 659 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), and that the county court had mistakenly treated dicta in State v. Powers, 555 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), as a holding from this court. As further explained in this opinion, in light of the decisions in Samborn v. State, 666…
-
Jaisen Williams v. DHSMV (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2009)…ere to the written policies concerning video and audio taping violated the defendant’s due process rights, these cases are not controlling and require a showing of bad faith by the officer. This Court, finds persuasive the opinion in State v. Betts, 659 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) where the Fifth District Court of Appeal answered in the negative the certified question: If there is an established police policy of videotaping field sobriety tests, is it a violation of defendant’s rights if no tape is produce…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Powers, 555 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)