STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EARL SANDT, 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.
The State appealed an order suppressing the statutory presumption of impairment based on blood-alcohol test results in a DUI case. The court held that while the administrative rules governing blood sample collection and storage were inadequate, the State could still introduce test results at trial if it established the traditional scientific predicate from State v. Bender, and if that predicate was satisfied, the statutory presumption of impairment would be available.
The State is entitled to the statutory presumption of impairment if it lays the three-prong scientific predicate described in State v. Bender. The administrative rules are inadequate to ensure preservation of blood samples, but this deficiency does not prevent admission of test results; rather, it requires the State to establish traditional scientific reliability through the Bender predicate before the statutory presumption applies.
[1] An interlocutory order granting a motion in limine may be reviewed by writ of certiorari.
[2] An administrative rule governing the collection, storage, and transportation of blood samples must provide sufficient standards to ensure the scientific reliability of bl…
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“in light of the rules' deficiencies, the State would be entitled to the statutory presumption only after laying 'the three-prong predicate described in Bender.'”
Establishes the core holding that the State must satisfy the Bender predicate before invoking the statutory presumption of impairment, due to inadequacies in the administrative rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEarl Sandt was charged with DUI. Sandt moved to suppress blood-alcohol test results, arguing that the administrative rules governing sample collection…
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.
STRINGER, Judge.
The State challenges an order granting, in part, Robert Sandt’s motion in limine and motion to suppress blood-alcohol test results in this DUI case. Sandt moved to suppress the results of two blood-alcohol tests, arguing that the administrative rules governing sample collection, storage and analysis are inadequate to ensure rehable results. See Fla. Adm.Code Rules 11D-8.011-.014 (1997). In granting Sandt’s motion, the trial court ruled that the State would not be allowed to rely upon the statutory presumption of impairment provided by section 316.1934, Florida Statutes (1997), but could admit Sandt’s test results at trial upon establishing the traditional scientific predicate described in State v. Bender, 382 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1980). Sandt’s trial was stayed pending resolution of this appeal. We treat the State’s notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(A), and grant the petition in part. See also Richardson v. State, 706 So. 2d 1349, 1357 (Fla.1998) (noting that State may seek review of pretrial evidentiary ruling via petition for certiorari).
In State v. Townsend, 746 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this court adopted the First District’s reasoning on this issue set forth in State v. Miles, 732 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 740 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1999). In Miles the First District held that the administrative rules are inadequate to ensure preservation of blood samples and could possibly lead to inaccurate results. The Miles court held, as we do here, that in light of the rules’ deficiencies, the State would be entitled to the statutory presumption only after laying “the three-prong predicate described in Bender.” Id. at 353. Accordingly, on remand the jury in the present case should be instructed regarding the statutory presumption of impairment if the State lays the necessary predicate.
We also certify the following question as one of great public importance:
WHERE THE STATE LAYS THE THREE-PRONGED PREDICATE FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANALYSIS SET FORTH IN ROBERTSON V. STATE, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla.1992), THEREBY ESTABLISHING THE SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY OF THE BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS, IS THE STATE ENTITLED TO THE LEGISLATIVELY CREATED PRESUMPTIONS OF IMPAIRMENT?
Petition for Certiorari granted in part, denied in part; question certified.
PATTERSON, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sercey, 825 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…677 So. 2d 841 (Fla.1996); State v. Pagach, 442 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Snell, 391 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). But see State v. Barber, 783 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), rev. granted, 800 So. 2d 612 (Fla.2001); State v. Sandt, 751 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), approved in part, quashed in part on other grounds, 774 So. 2d 692 (Fla.2000); State v. Sybers, 743 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). . See Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24, 33-34 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 725 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1…
-
State v. Sandt, 774 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 2000)…YSIS SET FORTH IN ROBERTSON V [*693] STATE, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla.1992), THEREBY ESTABLISHING THE SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY OF THE BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS, IS THE STATE ENTITLED TO THE LEGISLATIVELY CREATED PRESUMPTIONS OF IMPAIRMENT? State v. Sandt, 751 So. 2d 136, 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently answered this question in State v. Miles, 775 So. 2d 950 (Fla.2000), wherein we held (1) the absence of appropriate standards with respect to the maintenance o…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bender, 382 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1980)
- Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1992)
- Richardson v. State, 706 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1998)
- Lamb v. State, 732 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- State v. Miles, 732 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Ingold v. State, 746 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)