ROBERT NELSON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, 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 court held that the agency's consideration of accident scene statements was error, as they are inadmissible under statute and administrative proceedings.
Robert Nelson petitioned for a writ of certiorari after his license suspension was upheld by the circuit court appellate division. The only evidence a…
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 Miscarriage Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Robert Nelson petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash a circuit court appellate division decision upholding a final order of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles sustaining the administrative suspension of Nelson’s license.1 We have jurisdiction, see Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 668 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla.1995), grant the petition and quash the decision.
The agency’s consideration of the report or statements made at the accident scene, for the purpose of completing the required crash report, during its proceedings against Nelson was error. The statements of persons involved in the crash made to investigators at the accident scene are inadmissible pursuant to section 316.066, Florida Statutes (1999). The statute “prohibits the use of the report [or statements] as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal.” Hoctor v. Tucker, 432 So. 2d 1352, 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). This prohibition is applicable to administrative proceedings. See Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Perry, 702 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The only evidence presented against Nelson were statements made to the officer during the accident investigation stage. These objected-to statements were privileged and inadmissible, and admission thereof constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Absent this inadmissible evidence, there was insufficient evidence to deem that Nelson was the driver. Accordingly, we grant the petition.
Petition granted, and decision quashed.
. Contrary to the department's assertion, the appellate division entered a written opinion in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddox v. State, 923 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2006)…v. Perry, 702 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (holding that “the Corbin case is controlling” and therefore the crash report “statute must also be applied to administrative proceedings”); Nelson v. State Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 757 So. 2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (citing Perry for the proposition that the crash report provision “is applicable to administrative proceedings”). Suffice it for these purposes to say that the modifier “civil or criminal” does not expand the scope of the ph…
-
State v. Brass, 906 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Smith, 687 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Favino, 667 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Unlike the situation in Nelson v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 757 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the present record contains ample evidence that, when viewed in its totality, supported the officer’s probable cause determination. We GRANT the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and QUASH the order of the circuit court, with dir…
-
Anderson v. Mitchell (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…Some courts have also used language describing the post-1989 version of section 316.066(4) as making the statements both inadmissible and privileged. See, e.g., Perez, 630 So. 2d at 1232; Nelson v. State Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 757 So. 2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). However, these statements are dicta and are therefore not binding on this court. In conclusion, the current version of section 316.066(4) does not create a true privilege precluding the disclosure of statements of indiv…
Authorities Cited
- Hoctor v. Tucker, 432 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Perry, 702 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)