STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MANFRED H. LIEFERT, 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 the trial court's suppression of evidence in a DUI case, arguing the defendant should not have been required to take sobriety tests without being informed he could refuse them. The appellate court reversed, holding that consent to physical sobriety tests is immaterial where the officer has reasonable cause to believe a DUI crime has been committed.
The court held that the question of consent concerning physical sobriety tests is immaterial. Where a police officer has observed conduct suggesting DUI and smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath, the officer has sufficient cause to require participation in physical sobriety tests without informing the defendant of a right to refuse.
[1] A police officer has sufficient cause to believe a crime has been committed when observing a vehicle weaving across multiple lanes of traffic and detecting the odor of al…
[2] A driver's consent to take physical sobriety tests is immaterial when the officer has probable cause to believe the driver has committed a crime.
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 question of consent concerning such physical tests has been held to be immaterial by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that consent to sobriety tests is not required
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer observed Liefert driving his panel truck in a weaving fashion across two lanes of traffic. When Liefert pulled over, the officer appr…
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 Driving Under The Influence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order granting appellee’s Motion to Suppress. Appellee-defendant had been charged by information with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. A police officer had observed appellee driving his panel truck in a weaving fashion across two lanes of traffic. Appellee had pulled over and had gotten out of his truck when the police officer approached him. Thereupon, the police officer asked for and received appellee’s driver’s license, noticed an odor of an alcoholic beverage and gave appellee the usual Miranda warnings. After appellee acknowledged that he understood these rights, the police officer asked him if he would take some physical sobriety tests and appellee stated that he would.
During trial, appellee’s Motion to Suppress was granted on the basis that although the usual Miranda warnings had been given, the police officer had failed to advise the defendant that he had a right to either take physical tests or refuse to take physical tests and that any conclusions or opinions testified to by the arresting officer which could conceivably have been made as a result of those tests would also be tainted and therefore inadmissible.
We must overrule the trial court’s order since the question of consent concerning such physical tests has been held to be immaterial by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell, Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 618. Following the reasoning of the court in Mitchell, we hold that the police officer, after having observed appellee drive in a weaving fashion and then noticing the smell of alcohol on his breath, had sufficient cause to believe that appellee had committed a crime in the operation of a motor vehicle and could require him to take part in such physical sobriety tests.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
PIERCE, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Erling Knud Ove Hansen, Jr. v. State, 420 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…d because in June 1970 Hansen filed a motion for post-cónviction relief, alleging the same or similar ground as that alleged in the motion under consideration, which the trial court denied and upon appeal to this Court was affirmed. Hansen v. State, 247 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Hansen is not entitled to file a second post-conviction motion alleging the same ground as the previously disposed of motion. Williams v. State, 392 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). AFFIRMED. ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Cnty. OF Dade v. Eleanora A. G. Callahan, 259 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…v. State, Fla.1969, 225 So. 2d 321; Gay v. City of Orlando, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So. 2d 896; and City of Piqua v. Hinger, 15 Ohio St.2d 110, 238 N.E. 2d 766 (1968). Cf. State v. Mitchell, Fla.1971, 245 So. 2d 618; and State v. Liefert, Fla. App. 1971, 247 So. 2d 18. In State v. Pyle, 19 Ohio St.2d 64, 249 N.E. 2d 826 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1007, 90 S.Ct. 561, 24 L.Ed.2d 498 (1970), [*507] the Supreme Court of Ohio held that Miranda warnings do not apply in an offense where the defendant was charged an…
-
Woodward v. Duval Motor Co., 391 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…State, 378 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1979); Sambrine v. State, 386 So. 2d 546 (Fla.1980). And, if the driver refuses consent, he must suffer the sanction of having his license suspended for the statutory period. Sambrine v. State, supra. . State v. Liefert, 247 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), without discussing the statute, held admissible such results even in the absence of any determination whether they were for the declared purpose of completing an accident report, as required by the statute. . Precisely what Coff…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mitchell, 245 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1971)