STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BOBBY JEAN SMITH, 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.
Florida appeals the dismissal of a DUI charge where the defendant refused a breathalyzer test and insisted on a blood test that could not be administered. The court holds that while defendants have a right to request a chemical test, they do not have an absolute right to choose which of the four permissible tests will be administered.
A defendant arrested for DUI has the right to request a chemical test to determine blood alcohol content, but does not have an unqualified right to select which specific test will be administered. The legislature intended the enumeration of four tests to specify permissible options once a request for 'a chemical test' is made, not to grant defendants absolute choice among them.
[1] A statute providing that an arrested person may request a chemical test for alcoholic content does not grant the arrested person an unqualified right to select which of t…
[2] The purpose of allowing an arrested person to request a chemical test is to enable the presentation of exculpatory evidence, not to grant an unfettered choice of test typ…
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“Any person arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages may request the arresting officer to have a chemical test made of the arrested person's breath, blood, saliva, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of such person's blood, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed.”
The statute granting defendants the right to request chemical testing, which the trial court misinterpreted as granting absolute selection rights among the four tests.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBobby Jean Smith was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. While in custody, he was offered a Breathalyzer test and informed that refus…
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 Statutory Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee Smith was arrested and charged with driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, while affected to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired contrary to Section 317.201, Florida *729Statutes, F.S.A. While in custody appellee was asked to take a Breathalyzer test and was informed that his refusal to submit to the test could result in the revocation of his license. Smith refused to take the Breathalyzer test and instead insisted on a blood test. As there was no one available who was qualified to withdraw blood, no test whatsoever was given to determine the alcohol content of appellee’s blood.
The charges against Smith were dismissed by the court below upon motion by appellee. The reasoning underlying the dismissal was that an accused individual is entitled to select which test he would have administered to himself under Section 322.-261(1) (g), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which provides:
“Any person arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages may request the arresting officer to have a chemical test made of the arrested person’s breath, blood, saliva, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of such person’s blood, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed.” (emphasis added.)
We do not agree with the trial court’s interpretation of the above-quoted statute. It is readily apparent that the legislature intended to afford an individual charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol the benefit of a chemical test in order that he might be able to present exculpatory evidence at a subsequent trial on the charges. However, it would be unreasonable to find that the legislature further intended that an accused have an unqualified right to select which of the four tests would be administered. Such a finding of legislative intent would afford individuals arrested in rural areas of the state or those apprehended late at night an opportunity to demand one of the four enumerated tests which could not be administered by the arresting officers and which could not be administered by qualified personnel within a reasonable time. The delineation of the four distinct tests was intended to specify those which may be administered once the accused makes a request for “a chemical test.”
The trial court’s dismissal with prejudice is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
LILES, J., concurs.
MANN, J., dissents with opinion.
(dissenting).
I dissent on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction over appeals in misdemeanor cases from “Criminal Courts of Record.” Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 6, vests jurisdiction over these appeals in the Circuit Court. I interpret this language to include the Civil and Criminal Court of Record in Pinellas County, although it has no felony jurisdiction, as do those courts created under Article V, Section 9.
MANN, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction over appeals in misdemeanor cases from “Criminal Courts of Record.” Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 6, vests jurisdiction over these appeals in the Circuit Court. I interpret this language to include the Civil and Criminal Court of Record in Pinellas County, although it has no felony jurisdiction, as do those courts created under Article V, Section 9.