PEDRO JUAN HERNANDEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES J. MCCRAY, ACT. DIR. MIAMI ETC., ET AL, 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.
Pedro Juan Hernandez petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention based on a positive drug test ordered by the trial judge without legal justification. The Florida District Court of Appeal granted the petition, finding the drug test was ordered without probable cause and that the petitioner's detention was therefore unlawful.
The court held that the drug test and resulting detention were unlawful error. There was no evidence supporting the forced urinalysis other than tardiness, the petitioner was not charged with violating a court order, there were no findings of impairment or bail bond violations, and there was no probable cause to take the petitioner into custody.
[1] A trial court may not order a defendant to undergo a drug test absent evidence of impairment, violation of a court order, or failure to comply with bond conditions.
[2] A defendant's tardiness for a court appearance, without more, does not constitute probable cause for a forced urinalysis.
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“Simply put, there is no evidence other than the petitioner's tardiness to support a forced urinalysis or drug screen.”
Establishes that the trial judge lacked any legal basis for ordering the drug test
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHernandez was arrested in December 2003 for violating Section 800.04(4)(a), Florida Statutes, and was released on bond. His trial was scheduled for Ma…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Pedro Juan Hernandez (“petitioner”) seeks a writ of habeas corpus, claiming his current detention is unlawful and that he is entitled to immediate release. We exercise our jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, section 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and grant the petition for habeas corpus.
The petitioner was arrested for an alleged violation of Section 800.04(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), in December of 2003. A few weeks later, the petitioner was released on bond. The case was set for trial on May 3, 2004. Defense counsel informed the State that a defense continuance was being sought, and asked anothér attorney to cover the petitioner’s case to request a continuance on the scheduled trial day.
On the morning of the scheduled trial day, the petitioner was in the hallway outside the courtroom looking for his original defense counsel. When the case was called, the petitioner was not present and the trial judge issued an alias/capias. Substitute counsel then located the petitioner in the hallway, and both appeared in court prior to the conclusion of the morning calendar. When the petitioner appeared in court, the trial judge set aside the alias/capias, but stated: ‘We are drug testing you too ... Drug test both of them.” The trial judge had just ordered the drug test of an earlier defendant. The trial judge did not articulate any reason for ordering the petitioner’s drug test. The petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to respond to the request for urine and was not provided with an opportunity to speak with counsel prior to being taken into the jury room “to drop.” The record further indicates the petitioner did not have a Spanish-language translator and was never advised as to any reason for the requested drug screen. The petitioner allegedly tested positive for illegal drugs and was subsequently ordered to be placed in detention without bond.
This was clearly error. Simply put, there is no evidence other than the petitioner’s tardiness to support a forced urinalysis or drug screen. At no time was the petitioner charged with violating a court order or court decorum. There are no findings that the petitioner was in any way impaired at the hearing or that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bond contract. There was no probable cause to take the petitioner into custody. See § 903.046, Fla. Stat. (2004).
Under these circumstances, it was error for the trial court to order the petitioner detained with no bond. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and direct that the detention based upon the sua sponte drug test be vacated. Bond is reinstated and the respondent is ordered to immediately release the petitioner from custody.
This opinion shall take effect immediately notwithstanding the'filing of any motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tavia Smith v. McRAY, 907 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…m. In addition, the trial court did not make any findings that the petitioner was in any way impaired at the hearing. Simply put, there was no probable cause to take the petitioner into custody. See § 903.046, Fla. Stat. (2004); Hernandez v. McCray, 879 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Reyes v. McCray, 879 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). [*577] Under these circumstances, the trial court erred in ordering the petitioner detained with no bond. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and direc…
-
Pullins v. McCRAY, 884 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…ppearance before the circuit court, was summarily ordered to be drug tested, taken into custody and had his bond revoked under circumstances virtually identical to those in Reyes v. McCray, 879 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) and Hernandez v. McCray, 879 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). On the authority of those cases, we grant habeas corpus, vacate the revocation and order the defendant released from custody on his reinstated bond. Habeas Corpus granted.…