results test in Florida

2022See Knight v. State, 154 So. 3d 1157, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“When an officer unlawfully asserts official authority, either expressly or administered at the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe such person was driving or was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. 4 The qualifications of this employee to administer the breath test are not an issue in this appeal. 4 implicitly, to gain access to evidence, that evidence must be suppressed.”).

2022See Knight v. State, 154 So. 3d 1157, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“When an officer unlawfully asserts official authority, either expressly or implicitly, to gain access to evidence, that evidence must be suppressed.”).

1997Id. at 770 .

1994In Miller v. State, 597 So.2d 767, 770 (Fla.1991), the Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court had erred in removing from the jury’s consideration the question of whether the results of a test conducted 1 ½ hours after the defendant was stopped were probative of the level of alcohol in his body before he was stopped.

2025See Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 666 (2011) (“New Mexico could have avoided any Confrontation Clause problem by asking [the substitute expert] to retest the sample and then testify to the results of his retest rather than to the results of a test he did not conduct or observe.”).

2018See Armstrong , 773 So.2d at 18 (determining the chief purpose of the relevant amendment by analyzing its "main effect"); Smith , 606 So.2d at 620 (striking an amendment where the ballot language "[told] the voter nothing about the actual change to be effected").

2018See Armstrong , 773 So.2d at 18 (determining the chief purpose of the relevant amendment by analyzing its "main effect"); Smith , 606 So.2d at 620 (striking an amendment where the ballot language "[told] the voter nothing about the actual change to be effected").

2016It does not appear to me - 14 - that this circuit judge predicated convening the summary proceeding on first obtaining the results of a court-ordered alcohol test or that he premised the guilty adjudication or sentence on the results of that test,3 unlike the circuit judge in Plank, who very clearly did both. 190 So. 3d at 597 (noting that, after receiving complaints about prospective juror's apparent intoxication, defendant was ordered to take a breathalyzer test outside of court, following which, "an hour later . . . the trial judge held a contempt hearing").

2016Koo is entitled to this minimal degree of due process before the State can take away a decade of his life. - 12 - Id. at 698-99 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted).

2005See Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Alliston, 813 So.2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), rev. denied, 835 So.2d 269 (Fla.2002).

2001The Court will now direct counsel to direct the witness' attention to the results of the analysis from the debris that had been located on the knife. [13] See generally Duest v. State, 462 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1985) ("[A] mistrial is appropriate only when the error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial."). [14] See, e.g., Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 546 (Fla.1999) ("This Court's case law states that a trial court' ruling on a motion for mistrial is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review."). [15] See DuBoise v. State, 520 So.2d 260, 264-65 (Fla.1988) ("Th

2001The Court will now direct counsel to direct the witness' attention to the results of the analysis from the debris that had been located on the knife. [13] See generally Duest v. State, 462 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1985) ("[A] mistrial is appropriate only when the error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial."). [14] See, e.g., Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 546 (Fla.1999) ("This Court's case law states that a trial court' ruling on a motion for mistrial is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review."). [15] See DuBoise v. State, 520 So.2d 260, 264-65 (Fla.1988) ("Th

2001The Court will now direct counsel to direct the witness' attention to the results of the analysis from the debris that had been located on the knife. [13] See generally Duest v. State, 462 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1985) ("[A] mistrial is appropriate only when the error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial."). [14] See, e.g., Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 546 (Fla.1999) ("This Court's case law states that a trial court' ruling on a motion for mistrial is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review."). [15] See DuBoise v. State, 520 So.2d 260, 264-65 (Fla.1988) ("Th

2000See Dorman v. State, 492 So.2d 1160, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); White, 492 So.2d at 1164 .

1996See State v. Barrett, 508 So.2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987).