PETER PALAZZOTTO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Peter Palazzotto appealed his convictions for DUI serious bodily injury, DUI with damage to property, child neglect, and battery on a law enforcement officer. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed all judgments and sentences, holding that probable cause existed for a blood draw based on multiple factors beyond the odor of alcohol alone.
The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that probable cause existed for the blood draw. The odor of alcohol combined with the speed of driving and violent behavior at the hospital provided sufficient probable cause to order a blood draw under § 316.1933(1)(a).
[1] Probable cause for a forcible blood draw after a traffic accident with serious bodily injury exists when the odor of alcohol is coupled with other evidence of impairment,…
[2] The odor of alcohol alone may not be sufficient probable cause to order a blood draw in DUI cases involving serious bodily injury.
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“The odor of alcohol was not the only evidence of Mr. Palazzotto's impairment. The speed at which he had been driving and his violent behavior at the hospital, coupled with the odor of alcohol, provided probable cause to order a blood draw.”
Establishes that multiple factors together constitute probable cause for a blood draw under § 316.1933(1)(a), not merely the odor of alcohol.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalazzotto was involved in a traffic accident that caused serious bodily injury. A law enforcement officer sought to order a blood draw under Florida …
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 Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
LaROSE, Judge.
Peter Palazzotto appeals his judgments and sentences for DUI serious bodily injury, DUI with damage to person or property, child neglect, and battery on a law enforcement officer. We affirm the judgments and sentences but write to address Mr. Palazzotto’s invitation to us to recede from State v. Catt, 839 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Keeton v. State, 525 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Mr. Palazzotto s other point does not warrant discussion.
Mr. Palazzotto claims that the trial court erred in ruling that a law enforcement officer had probable cause to order a blood draw pursuant to section 316.1933, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Section 316.1933(l)(a) allows a forcible blood draw after a traffic accident with serious bodily injury where there is probable cause to believe that the driver was under the influence of alcohol. Despite Mr. Palazzotto’s invitation, we need not reexamine whether the odor of alcohol on the defendant alone is sufficient probable cause to order a blood draw. See Catt, 839 So. 2d at 759-60; Keeton, 525 So. 2d at 914. The odor of alcohol was not the only evidence of Mr. Palazzotto’s impairment. The speed at which he had been driving and his violent behavior at the hospital, coupled with the odor of alcohol, provided probable cause to order a blood draw.
Affirmed.
KELLY and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur. . 316.1933 Blood test for impairment or intoxication in cases of death or serious bodily injury; right to use reasonable force.—
(l)(a) If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by or in the actual physical control of a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substances, or any controlled substances has caused the death or serious bodily injury of a human being, a law enforcement officer shall require the person driving or in actual physical control of the motor vehicle to submit to a test of the person’s blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content thereof or the presence of chemical substances as set forth in s. 877.111 or any substance controlled under chapter 893. The law enforcement officer may use reasonable force if necessary to require such person to submit to the administration of the blood test.... Notwithstanding s. 316.1932, the testing required by this paragraph need not be incidental to a lawful arrest of the person.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Quintanilla (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ausation is not always capable of speedy determination.12 Consequently, we conclude that the State sufficiently demonstrated the probable cause necessary for a compulsory blood draw under section 316.1933, Florida Statutes. See Palazzotto v. State, 988 So. 2d 123, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“Section 316.1933(1)(a) allows a forcible blood draw after a traffic accident with serious bodily injury where there is probable cause to believe that the driver was under the influence of alcohol.”). Accordingly, we reverse…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Catt, 839 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Keeton v. State, 525 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)