10 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2023 1 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. Boddengreen1 sentence2023At the outset, we note that a urine test was impractical because the defendant was suspected of impairment due to alcohol consumption and, for purposes of section 316.1932, “[b]reath and blood tests detect alcohol content, whereas urine tests detect controlled substances.” See State v. Bodden, 877 So. 2d 680, 689 (Fla. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Sun Ray Homes, Inc. v. County of Dadegreen1 sentence2012See Sun Ray Homes, Inc. v. County of Dade, 166 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). | 1 | 1 |
Mehl v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Mehl v. State, 632 So.2d 593, 594 (Fla.1993). [4] At the hearing on the motion Bodden stipulated that he submitted to a urine test and the results were positive for a controlled substance. [5] Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(4)(A)-(B) vests discretionary jurisdiction in the district courts of appeal to review certified questions of great public importance from the county courts. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Polakgreen1 sentence2002See State v. Polak, 598 So.2d 150, 153-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding that where breath tests given were not approved tests, the defendants’ consent “was based on misinformation, namely, that their licenses would be suspended for failure to submit to an approved test, [and] the defendants’ consent cannot be deemed voluntary pursuant to” the rule enunciated in State v. Burnett, 536 So.2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burnettgreen1 sentence2002See State v. Polak, 598 So.2d 150, 153-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding that where breath tests given were not approved tests, the defendants’ consent “was based on misinformation, namely, that their licenses would be suspended for failure to submit to an approved test, [and] the defendants’ consent cannot be deemed voluntary pursuant to” the rule enunciated in State v. Burnett, 536 So.2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pierre
green
2 sentences2004However, this court recently decided State v. Pierre, 854 So.2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), wherein we disagreed with the ruling in Bodden and certified conflict on the evidentiary issue. 2004The Fifth District similarly stated in Pierre that "[t]he legislature apparently concluded that its own basic guidelines were sufficient for this rather simple test, but that more comprehensive procedures should be developed for blood testing, which is more intrusive, and breath testing, which is more complex, than urine testing." 854 So.2d at 233 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Bodden
green
2 sentences2004Weekly D2382 , — So,2d -, 2002 WL 31421575 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct.30, 2002), rev. granted, 853 So.2d 1071 (Fla.2003), which held that a urine test taken pursuant to Florida’s implied consent law, if not approved pursuant to the rule-making requirements of Administrative Procedures Act, is not admissible as a scientific test pursuant to the traditional rules regarding the admissibility of evidence. 2003Relying upon the opinion of our sister court in State v. Bodden, 2002 WL 31421575 , ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), the county court suppressed the results of Appellee's urine test, which revealed the presence of controlled substances in his urine. | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Cynthia Proctor Bedell v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2023The court noted that, although medical personnel could have been called to assist the defendant to the bathroom, a urine test remained “impractical.” Id. at 150 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Buehler v. Rosenblum
green
2 sentences2016The doctrine of “implied amendment” concerns circumstances in which “the effect of [a] subsequent act is * * * to make [a statute enacted earlier] partially inoperative in certain situations.” Buehler v. Rosenblum, 354 Or 318, 326 , 311 P3d 882 (2013). 2016The doctrine of “implied amendment” concerns circumstances in which “the effect of [a] subsequent act is * * * to make [a statute enacted earlier] partially inoperative in certain situations.” Buehler v. Rosenblum, 354 Or 318, 326 , 311 P3d 882 (2013). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Long v. State
green
2 sentences2011Id. 2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Young
green
1 sentence1991Any person who is incapable of refusal by reason of unconsciousness ... shall be deemed not to have withdrawn his consent to such a test... . [9] Section 316.1933(1), Florida Statutes (1989) provides: (1) Notwithstanding any recognized ability to refuse to submit to the tests provided in s. 316.1932 or any recognized power to revoke the implied consent to such tests, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by or in the actual physical control of a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substances, or any controlled substan | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Bell
green
1 sentence1991Any person who is incapable of refusal by reason of unconsciousness ... shall be deemed not to have withdrawn his consent to such a test... . [9] Section 316.1933(1), Florida Statutes (1989) provides: (1) Notwithstanding any recognized ability to refuse to submit to the tests provided in s. 316.1932 or any recognized power to revoke the implied consent to such tests, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by or in the actual physical control of a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substances, or any controlled substan | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Metropolitan Dade County v. Nichols
neutral
1 sentence1991Any person who is incapable of refusal by reason of unconsciousness ... shall be deemed not to have withdrawn his consent to such a test... . [9] Section 316.1933(1), Florida Statutes (1989) provides: (1) Notwithstanding any recognized ability to refuse to submit to the tests provided in s. 316.1932 or any recognized power to revoke the implied consent to such tests, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by or in the actual physical control of a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substances, or any controlled substan | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Bender
green
1 sentence1991Any person who is incapable of refusal by reason of unconsciousness ... shall be deemed not to have withdrawn his consent to such a test... . [9] Section 316.1933(1), Florida Statutes (1989) provides: (1) Notwithstanding any recognized ability to refuse to submit to the tests provided in s. 316.1932 or any recognized power to revoke the implied consent to such tests, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by or in the actual physical control of a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substances, or any controlled substan | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Fogarty v. State
neutral
1 sentence1990While only a court may set conditions upon which probation can be revoked, Fogarty v. State, 465 So.2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), requiring a urinalysis here can only be seen as the specified "follow-up" and, therefore, a reasonable part of the normal supervisory directions given by a probation officer. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.