23 Florida opinions name it 4 courts 1982–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2003However, although there is information in the record that Menna had been to the bathroom and washed her hands before being asked to submit to the test, there was no testimony that Menna continued washing her hands after being asked to submit to the test. [2] Notably, in State v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 701, 704 (Fla.1995), we determined that the facts surrounding a defendant's refusal to take a field sobriety test were relevant to show his consciousness of guilt. 1996See State v. Burns, 661 So.2d 842, 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), dismissed, 676 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1996)(refusal to perform the physical, non-testimonial field sobriety tests on videotape at the center and refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test are admissible.); State v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 701, 704 (Fla.1995)(in a pre-arrest situation, a defendant's refusal to take a field sobriety test (not involving a testimonial response) is admissible to show consciousness of guilt). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Burns, 661 So. 2d 842, 843, 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (noting that the FSE’s in the case included (1) the recitation of the alphabet in a non-rhythmic fashion while standing with one’s feet together, hands at the side, and head back; (2) standing on one leg and counting; (3) walking heel-to-toe for a certain distance; and (4) touching one’s finger to the nose, and explaining that “having a defendant perform the field sobriety test on videotape [is] really nothing more than the collection and preservation of physical evidence”). 2 DUI. 1996See State v. Burns, 661 So.2d 842, 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), dismissed, 676 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1996)(refusal to perform the physical, non-testimonial field sobriety tests on videotape at the center and refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test are admissible.); State v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 701, 704 (Fla.1995)(in a pre-arrest situation, a defendant's refusal to take a field sobriety test (not involving a testimonial response) is admissible to show consciousness of guilt). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2020In Davis, a videotape of a field sobriety test in a felony DUI case was lost by the State. 14 So. 3d at 1131 . 2009See Davis, 14 So.3d at 1131 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Rivas-Marmolgreen1 sentence2010Also noteworthy is State v. Rivas-Marmol, 679 So.2d 808, 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), where the Third District determined that an arrest of an individual accused of DUI occurred after he failed a field sobriety test and was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police cruiser, and advised he was going to the police station. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Casselmangreen2 sentences2009Oct. 21, 2008) (affirming conviction for driving while intoxicated despite the State's loss of the video recording of the defendant's field sobriety test) (unpublished opinion); State v. Casselman, 141 Idaho 592 , 114 P.3d 150, 153 (2005) (requiring a showing of bad faith in order to establish that the defendant's due process rights were violated when the police were unable to retrieve photographs after downloading them from a digital camera). 2009Oct. 21, 2008) (affirming conviction for driving while intoxicated despite the State's loss of the video recording of the defendant's field sobriety test) (unpublished opinion); State v. Casselman, 141 Idaho 592 , 114 P.3d 150, 153 (2005) (requiring a showing of bad faith in order to establish that the defendant's due process rights were violated when the police were unable to retrieve photographs after downloading them from a digital camera). | 1 | 1 |
State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Antholgreen1 sentence2002See Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Veh. v. Anthol, 742 So.2d 813, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ("Because the circuit court's written decision could affect many other administrative proceedings involving the suspension of drivers' licenses, we grant certiorari relief."). | 1 | 1 |
Burns v. Stategreen1 sentence1996See State v. Burns, 661 So.2d 842, 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), dismissed, 676 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1996)(refusal to perform the physical, non-testimonial field sobriety tests on videotape at the center and refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test are admissible.); State v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 701, 704 (Fla.1995)(in a pre-arrest situation, a defendant's refusal to take a field sobriety test (not involving a testimonial response) is admissible to show consciousness of guilt). | 1 | 1 |
Alsop v. Piercegreen1 sentence1990See Alsop v. Pierce, 155 Fla. 185 , 19 So.2d 799 (1944). | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. John O. Evans Construction Co.green1 sentence1990See Alsop v. Pierce, 155 Fla. 185 , 19 So.2d 799 (1944). | 1 | 1 |
Delgado v. Stategreen1 sentence1990See, Delgado v State, 691 S.W.2d 722 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berkemer v. McCarty
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2023After the defendant performed a field sobriety test, the officer asked the defendant if he had used any intoxicants, to which the defendant responded that “he had consumed two beers and had smoked several joints of marijuana.” Id. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Zinsli
green
2 sentences2020App. 245 , 966 P.2d 1200 (1998), which explained that a defendant’s testimony of his sobriety was not an “acceptable substitute” for a videotape of the actual field sobriety test, when a jury could find the defendant’s testimony “self-serving” as compared to an officer’s testimony. 2009Id. | 2 | 2009–2020 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2008Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (providing, in part, that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, criminal defendants are entitled to the presence of counsel during custodial interrogation). .The field sobriety test was not videotaped, nor does the record include any written report of the particular instructions and observations of the officer conducting the test. . 2008Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (providing, in part, that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, criminal defendants are entitled to the presence of counsel during custodial interrogation). .The field sobriety test was not videotaped, nor does the record include any written report of the particular instructions and observations of the officer conducting the test. . | 2 | 1995–2008 |
State v. Edwards
green
2 sentences1989Duval Motor Company v Woodard, 419 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1982) and State v Edwards, 463 So.2d 551 (5th DCA Fla. 1985). 1986State v. Edwards, 463 So.2d 551 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 471 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1985). | 2 | 1986–1989 |
Duval Motor Co. v. Woodward
green
2 sentences1989Duval Motor Company v Woodard, 419 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1982) and State v Edwards, 463 So.2d 551 (5th DCA Fla. 1985). 1985Finally, in Duval Motor Co. v. Woodward, 419 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1982), the court held that the results of a field sobriety test by the investigating officer during the accident report phase of the investigation were protected by section 316.066(4). | 2 | 1985–1989 |
Brackin v. Boles
green
2 sentences1985In Brackin v. Boles, 452 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1984), the Court reversed previous holdings and found that "the results of a blood alcohol test are admissible in a civil trial regardless of whether the test was made for purposes of an accident report investigation... ." It found that the test was not a communication protected by Section 316.066(4). 1985However, more recently in Brackin v. Boles, 452 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1984), the Florida Supreme Court expressly receded from Coffey and Mitchell. | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Pennsylvania v. Mimms
green
2 sentences1998In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), the Supreme Court set forth a "bright line" rule, holding that a police officer conducting a lawful traffic stop may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, order the driver to exit the vehicle even when the officer has no reason to suspect foul play from the driver. 1998In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), the Supreme Court set forth a "bright line" rule, holding that a police officer conducting a lawful traffic stop may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, order the driver to exit the vehicle even when the officer has no reason to suspect foul play from the driver. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Allred v. State
green
1 sentence1995In Allred v. State, 622 So.2d 984 (Fla.1993), the supreme court held a driver’s response to the alphabet and counting portions of a field sobriety test is testimonial in nature requiring Miranda warnings to be given before the statements can be used as evidence. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Powers
green
1 sentence1991Id. at 890 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Townsend
green
1 sentence1989The Court relied on State v Townsend, 479 So.2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) by analogy for its conclusion that the State could not appeal from an Order suppressing a videotape depicting the Appellee’s refusal to submit to a field sobriety test. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Stevens
green
2 sentences1989In order to require a field sobriety test an officer must have a reasonable founded suspicion of driving DUI, State v Stephens, 354 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 4DCA 1978). 1989In order to require a field sobriety test an officer must have a reasonable founded suspicion of driving DUI, State v Stephens, 354 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 4DCA 1978). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Herring v. State
green
1 sentence1988In Herring v State, 501 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Court held that the defendant’s refusal to submit to a similar request was inadmissible not only because it lacked any “significant probative value” but, also, because its admission would be unfair where the police may have led the defendant to believe that he had a right to refuse. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence1982As we said in Mitchell : The test for the statutory exclusion under Florida Statutes § 317.171, F.S.A., is whether the information sought to be excluded was taken by the investigating officer for the purpose of making his accident report and formed a basis for that report. 245 So.2d at 623 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Woodward v. Duval Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1982Like the district court, I "do not consider it was within the rational contemplation of the legislature that the results of a field sobriety test, involving as they do an officer's observations of an inebriate's compelled responses to such orders that he touch his nose, walk a straight line, or perform other feats of agility, be clothed with the protective mantle of statutory immunity, notwithstanding that those observations may later be reduced to writing and become part of the accident report." 391 So.2d at 702 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.