CURTIS GOODE, 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.
Affirmed conviction where blood extraction without consent for alcohol analysis does not violate the Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments under State v. Mitchell precedent.
Blood extraction without expressed consent for alcohol analysis does not violate the Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments when the facts fall within State v. Mitchell.
[1] Blood extraction without expressed consent for alcohol analysis does not violate constitutional protections when conducted under circumstances established in State v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Goode was convicted after blood samples were extracted without his expressed consent to determine alcoholic content.…
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 Constitutional Principles cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant vigorously contends by this appeal that extraction of blood samples without his expressed consent to an analysis to determine the alcoholic content contravenes the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America. Appellant states that the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971) “is contrary to the position he now takes in relation to the constitutional principles involved.” Nevertheless he argues that the Florida Supreme Court in its Mitchell opinion, misconstrued the principles of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) and urges us to adopt what he views as the corrected interpretation of law as set forth in Mitchell v. State, 227 So.2d 728 (2 Fla.App.1969). It is not the role of this court to re-evaluate a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Florida. As stated in this court’s opinion of Dawson v. State, 266 So.2d 116 (1 Fla.App.1972) :
“The facts surrounding the extraction of blood from Dawson fall squarely within those detailed in the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971), and thus this contention is without merit.”
The facts surrounding extraction of blood from appellant, Curtis Goode, also fall squarely in those detailed in Supreme Court’s decision State v. Mitchell, supra, and thus the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966)
- State v. Mitchell, 245 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1971)
- Mitchell v. State, 227 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Dawson v. State, 266 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)