Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Florida opinions name it 4 courts 1974–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maher v. Bank of Americagreen1 sentence2022See 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.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burnettgreen1 sentence1991Here the trial court expressly found that because the defendant was unconscious “the administration of a breathalyzer test [was] impractical or impossible.” The applicability of section 316.1932(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1989) was discussed in State v Burnett, 536 So.2d 375, 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), where the court observed that the following two requirements must be present before the section is applicable: (1) The individual tested must appear for treatment at a hospital, clinic, or medical facility as a result of his involvement as a driver in a motor vehicle accident and (2) the administrati | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hiltongreen1 sentence1988State v. Hilton, 498 So.2d 698, 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), petition for review denied, 506 So.2d 1041 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DHSMV v. Pelham
green
2 sentences2011As stated by the Fifth District in Pelham, 979 So.2d at 306 , “It necessarily follows that an individual does not violate the Implied Consent Law when he or she refuses to take a test that is not incidental to a lawful arrest.” Further, under the implied consent law, the person must be advised of the punishment for refusing to submit to a test: The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to any lawful test of his or her breath will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for a first refusal, or for a period of 18 month 2011As stated by the Fifth District in Pelham, 979 So.2d at 306 , "It necessarily follows that an individual does not violate the Implied Consent Law when he or she refuses to take a test that is not incidental to a lawful arrest." Further, under the implied consent law, the person must be advised of the punishment for refusing to submit to a test: The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to any lawful test of his or her breath will result in the suspension of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for a first refusal, or for a period of 18 month | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence1974State v. Mitchell, supra; AGO 073-361. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.