State v. Barrett, 508 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Barrett, 508 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Serrago (fladistctapp, 2004-07-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Serrago
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
In State v. Hilton, 498 So.2d 698 , 700 n. 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), the court observed: "We note that, unlike breath or urine tests, a blood test administered pursuant to section 316.1932(1)(c) need not be incidental to a lawful arrest." In addition, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Whitley, 846 So.2d 1163, 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), quoted with approval from State v. Barrett, 508 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987), as follows: "`[T]he legislature has specifically declared that breath tests must be incident to a lawful arrest, and has made pre-a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE, DEPT. OF HWY. SAF. AND MOTOR VEHICLES v. Whitley
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
In State v. Barrett, 508 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987), this court, applying section 316.1932(1)(a)1., held that "the legislature has specifically declared that breath tests must be incident to a lawful arrest, and has made pre-arrest breath tests inadmissible." We note that the statute has not been substantially changed or amended since Barrett was decided, and we are, therefore, bound by that decision. [1] Thus, based on Barrett , "incidental to a lawful arrest" as that term is used in section 316.1932(1)(a)1. means that the arrest must precede the br…
cited Cited "see" State v. Rivas-Marmol
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Barrett, 508 So.2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida
v.
Raymond BARRETT
No. 86-981.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan 22, 1987.
508 So. 2d 361
1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6400
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ellen D. Phillips, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant., James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancye R. Crouch, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Cobb, Cowart, Orfinger.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
ORFINGER, Judge.

We affirm the order of the trial court suppressing the results of a pre-arrest breath test on the ground that the results of a chemical test of a driver’s breath to determine the alcohol content of his blodd are admissible in evidence only where the test is incidental to a lawful arrest. § 316.1932(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985). The results of a pre-arrest breath test are not admissible into evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding. § 316.1932(1)(b)1, Fla.Stat. (1985). The State suggests that because an officer may compel a driver to submit to a blood test where the officer has probable cause to believe that the driver was operating the motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages and has caused death or serious injury, (section 316.1933(1)) which test need not be incident to arrest, that when death or serious injury has occurred the driver can consent to the administration of a less intrusive breath test which should thus be admissible as would be a non-consensual blood test. While this argument is enticing, the legislature has specifically declared that breath tests must be incident to a lawful arrest, and has made pre-arrest breath tests inadmissible. Cf. State v. Williams, 417 So.2d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). There is nothing in this record to suggest that the defendant consented to a breath test in lieu of a blood test.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.