316.1932

Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

316.1932 Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.—

(1)(a)1.a. A person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including, but not limited to, an infrared light test of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood or breath if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The chemical or physical breath test must be incidental to a lawful arrest and 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. The administration of a breath test does not preclude the administration of another type of 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 months if the driving privilege of such person has been previously suspended or if he or she has previously been fined under s. 327.35215 as a result of a refusal to submit to a test or tests required under this chapter or chapter 327, and shall also be told that if he or she refuses to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, he or she commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, or a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended or if he or she has previously been fined under s. 327.35215 for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood as required under this chapter or chapter 327, in addition to any other penalties provided by law. The refusal to submit to a chemical or physical breath test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section is admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding.

b. A person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to a urine test for the purpose of detecting the presence of chemical substances as set forth in s. 877.111 or controlled substances if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of chemical substances or controlled substances. The urine test must be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at a detention facility or any other facility, mobile or otherwise, which is equipped to administer such tests 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 a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of chemical substances or controlled substances. The urine test shall be administered at a detention facility or any other facility, mobile or otherwise, which is equipped to administer such test in a reasonable manner that will ensure the accuracy of the specimen and maintain the privacy of the individual involved. The administration of a urine test does not preclude the administration of another type of test. The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to any lawful test of his or her urine will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for the first refusal, or for a period of 18 months if the driving privilege of such person has been previously suspended or if he or she has previously been fined under s. 327.35215 as a result of a refusal to submit to a test or tests required under this chapter or chapter 327, and shall also be told that if he or she refuses to submit to a lawful test of his or her urine, he or she commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, or a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended or if he or she has previously been fined under s. 327.35215 for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood as required under this chapter or chapter 327, in addition to any other penalties provided by law. The refusal to submit to a urine test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section is admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding.

2. The Alcohol Testing Program within the Department of Law Enforcement is responsible for the regulation of the operation, inspection, and registration of breath test instruments utilized under the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327. The program is responsible for the regulation of the individuals who operate, inspect, and instruct on the breath test instruments utilized in the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327. The program is further responsible for the regulation of blood analysts who conduct blood testing to be utilized under the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327. The program shall:

a. Establish uniform criteria for the issuance of permits to breath test operators, agency inspectors, instructors, blood analysts, and instruments.

b. Have the authority to permit breath test operators, agency inspectors, instructors, blood analysts, and instruments.

c. Have the authority to discipline and suspend, revoke, or renew the permits of breath test operators, agency inspectors, instructors, blood analysts, and instruments.

d. Establish uniform requirements for instruction and curricula for the operation and inspection of approved instruments.

e. Have the authority to specify one approved curriculum for the operation and inspection of approved instruments.

f. Establish a procedure for the approval of breath test operator and agency inspector classes.

g. Have the authority to approve or disapprove breath test instruments and accompanying paraphernalia for use pursuant to the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327.

h. With the approval of the executive director of the Department of Law Enforcement, make and enter into contracts and agreements with other agencies, organizations, associations, corporations, individuals, or federal agencies as are necessary, expedient, or incidental to the performance of duties.

i. Issue final orders which include findings of fact and conclusions of law and which constitute final agency action for the purpose of chapter 120.

j. Enforce compliance with this section through civil or administrative proceedings.

k. Make recommendations concerning any matter within the purview of this section, this chapter, chapter 322, or chapter 327.

l. Promulgate rules for the administration and implementation of this section, including definitions of terms.

m. Consult and cooperate with other entities for the purpose of implementing the mandates of this section.

n. Have the authority to approve the type of blood test utilized under the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327.

o. Have the authority to specify techniques and methods for breath alcohol testing and blood testing utilized under the driving and boating under the influence provisions and related provisions located in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327.

p. Have the authority to approve repair facilities for the approved breath test instruments, including the authority to set criteria for approval.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede provisions in this chapter and chapters 322 and 327. The specifications in this section are derived from the power and authority previously and currently possessed by the Department of Law Enforcement and are enumerated to conform with the mandates of chapter 99-379, Laws of Florida.

(b)1. The blood-alcohol level must be based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. The breath-alcohol level must be based upon grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

2. An analysis of a person’s breath, in order to be considered valid under this section, must have been performed substantially according to methods approved by the Department of Law Enforcement. For this purpose, the department may approve satisfactory techniques or methods. Any insubstantial differences between approved techniques and actual testing procedures in any individual case do not render the test or test results invalid.

(c) A person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved blood test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the blood or a blood test for the purpose of determining the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances as provided in this section if there is reasonable cause to believe the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or chemical or controlled substances and the person appears for treatment at a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility and the administration of a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible. As used in this paragraph, the term “other medical facility” includes an ambulance or other medical emergency vehicle. The blood test shall be performed in a reasonable manner. A person who is incapable of refusal by reason of unconsciousness or other mental or physical condition is deemed not to have withdrawn his or her consent to such test. A blood test may be administered whether or not the person is told that his or her failure to submit to such a blood test will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state and that a refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her blood, if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, is a misdemeanor. A person who is capable of refusal shall be told that his or her failure to submit to such a blood test 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 months if the driving privilege of the person has been suspended previously or if he or she has previously been fined under s. 327.35215 as a result of a refusal to submit to a test or tests required under this chapter or chapter 327. The refusal to submit to a blood test upon the request of a law enforcement officer is admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding.

(d) If the arresting officer does not request a chemical or physical breath test of the person arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances, such person may request the arresting officer to have a chemical or physical test made of the arrested person’s breath or a test of the urine or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the person’s blood or breath or the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances; and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed.

(e)1. By applying for a driver license and by accepting and using a driver license, the person holding the driver license is deemed to have expressed his or her consent to the provisions of this section.

2. A nonresident or any other person driving in a status exempt from the requirements of the driver license law, by his or her act of driving in such exempt status, is deemed to have expressed his or her consent to the provisions of this section.

3. A warning of the consent provision of this section shall be printed on each new or renewed driver license.

(f)1. The tests determining the weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood or breath shall be administered at the request of a law enforcement officer substantially in accordance with rules of the Department of Law Enforcement. Such rules must specify precisely the test or tests that are approved by the Department of Law Enforcement for reliability of result and ease of administration, and must provide an approved method of administration which must be followed in all such tests given under this section. However, the failure of a law enforcement officer to request the withdrawal of blood does not affect the admissibility of a test of blood withdrawn for medical purposes.

2.a. Only a physician, certified paramedic, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, other personnel authorized by a hospital to draw blood, or duly licensed clinical laboratory director, supervisor, technologist, or technician, acting at the request of a law enforcement officer, may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining its alcoholic content or the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances therein. However, the failure of a law enforcement officer to request the withdrawal of blood does not affect the admissibility of a test of blood withdrawn for medical purposes.

b. Notwithstanding any provision of law pertaining to the confidentiality of hospital records or other medical records, if a health care provider, who is providing medical care in a health care facility to a person injured in a motor vehicle crash, becomes aware, as a result of any blood test performed in the course of that medical treatment, that the person’s blood-alcohol level meets or exceeds the blood-alcohol level specified in s. 316.193(1)(b), the health care provider may notify any law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency. Any such notice must be given within a reasonable time after the health care provider receives the test result. Any such notice shall be used only for the purpose of providing the law enforcement officer with reasonable cause to request the withdrawal of a blood sample pursuant to this section.

c. The notice shall consist only of the name of the person being treated, the name of the person who drew the blood, the blood-alcohol level indicated by the test, and the date and time of the administration of the test.

d. Nothing contained in s. 395.3025(4), s. 456.057, or any applicable practice act affects the authority to provide notice under this section, and the health care provider is not considered to have breached any duty owed to the person under s. 395.3025(4), s. 456.057, or any applicable practice act by providing notice or failing to provide notice. It shall not be a breach of any ethical, moral, or legal duty for a health care provider to provide notice or fail to provide notice.

e. A civil, criminal, or administrative action may not be brought against any person or health care provider participating in good faith in the provision of notice or failure to provide notice as provided in this section. Any person or health care provider participating in the provision of notice or failure to provide notice as provided in this section shall be immune from any civil or criminal liability and from any professional disciplinary action with respect to the provision of notice or failure to provide notice under this section. Any such participant has the same immunity with respect to participating in any judicial proceedings resulting from the notice or failure to provide notice.

3. The person tested may, at his or her own expense, have a physician, registered nurse, other personnel authorized by a hospital to draw blood, or duly licensed clinical laboratory director, supervisor, technologist, or technician, or other person of his or her own choosing administer an independent test in addition to the test administered at the direction of the law enforcement officer for the purpose of determining the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood or breath or the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances at the time alleged, as shown by chemical analysis of his or her blood or urine, or by chemical or physical test of his or her breath. The failure or inability to obtain an independent test by a person does not preclude the admissibility in evidence of the test taken at the direction of the law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer shall not interfere with the person’s opportunity to obtain the independent test and shall provide the person with timely telephone access to secure the test, but the burden is on the person to arrange and secure the test at the person’s own expense.

4. Upon the request of the person tested, full information concerning the results of the test taken at the direction of the law enforcement officer shall be made available to the person or his or her attorney. Full information is limited to the following:

a. The type of test administered and the procedures followed.

b. The time of the collection of the blood or breath sample analyzed.

c. The numerical results of the test indicating the alcohol content of the blood and breath.

d. The type and status of any permit issued by the Department of Law Enforcement which was held by the person who performed the test.

e. If the test was administered by means of a breath testing instrument, the date of performance of the most recent required inspection of such instrument.

Full information does not include manuals, schematics, or software of the instrument used to test the person or any other material that is not in the actual possession of the state. Additionally, full information does not include information in the possession of the manufacturer of the test instrument.

5. A hospital, clinical laboratory, medical clinic, or similar medical institution or physician, certified paramedic, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, other personnel authorized by a hospital to draw blood, or duly licensed clinical laboratory director, supervisor, technologist, or technician, or other person assisting a law enforcement officer does not incur any civil or criminal liability as a result of the withdrawal or analysis of a blood or urine specimen, or the chemical or physical test of a person’s breath pursuant to accepted medical standards when requested by a law enforcement officer, regardless of whether or not the subject resisted administration of the test.

(2) The results of any test administered pursuant to this section for the purpose of detecting the presence of any controlled substance shall not be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution for the possession of a controlled substance.

(3) Notwithstanding any provision of law pertaining to the confidentiality of hospital records or other medical records, information relating to the alcoholic content of the blood or breath or the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances in the blood obtained pursuant to this section shall be released to a court, prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, or law enforcement officer in connection with an alleged violation of s. 316.193 upon request for such information.

History.—s. 3, ch. 82-155; s. 3, ch. 82-403; s. 1, ch. 83-218; s. 4, ch. 83-228; s. 3, ch. 84-359; s. 2, ch. 86-296; s. 3, ch. 88-5; s. 1, ch. 88-82; s. 2, ch. 91-255; s. 20, ch. 92-58; s. 314, ch. 95-148; s. 4, ch. 96-330; s. 1, ch. 98-27; s. 6, ch. 2000-160; s. 1, ch. 2000-226; s. 2, ch. 2002-263; s. 1, ch. 2003-54; s. 33, ch. 2005-164; s. 1, ch. 2006-247; s. 1, ch. 2021-184; s. 3, ch. 2025-121.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 275 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Hernandez

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Hernandez (2011) fla · cites it 50× “The obligation to submit to breath-alcohol testing emanates from section 316.1932, Florida Statutes (2006), [4] commonly known as the implied consent law.”

State v. Bodden (2004) fla · cites it 25× “*683 Bodden argued that section 316.1932, part of the implied consent law pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles, [3] requires that any scientific test conducted pursuant to the implied consent law, including a urine test, be an approved test.”

Nader v. Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles (2012) fla · cites it 12× “3 First Certified Question Statutory Scheme for Florida’s Implied Consent Law Section 316.1932, Florida Statutes (2007), commonly known as Florida’s implied consent law, addresses in three separate provisions the circumstances under which a driver is required to submit to…”

State v. Kliphouse (2000) fladistctapp · cites it 33× “See §§ 316.1932 and 316.1933, Fla. Stat. (1999).”

State v. Montello (2004) fladistctapp · cites it 11× “As did the court in Pierre , we rephrase the question certified by the county court: Does section 316.1932, Florida Statutes (2002), require that urine testing procedures first be "approved" by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement before they may be administered to persons…”

State v. Slaney (1995) fladistctapp · cites it 21× “(1991)] impose, in certain respects, higher standards on police conduct in obtaining breath, urine, and blood samples from a defendant in a DUI case than those required by the Fourth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court in Sambrine v.”

BYRON MCGRAW v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2018) fladistctapp · cites it 17× “See §§ 316.1932, .1933, .1934, Fla. Stat. (2015).”

State v. Geiss (2011) fladistctapp · cites it 14× “Implied Consent Law The trial court also erred in finding that the search in this case violated Florida's implied consent statute, section 316.1932, Florida Statutes (2009).”

Unruh v. State (1996) fla · cites it 8× “See § 316.1932(1)(f)3., Fla.Stat. (1995). [8] New York, like Florida, does not have a statutory requirement that the defendant be affirmatively advised of the right to an independent blood test.”

State v. Serrago (2004) fladistctapp · cites it 23× “1933, and finding that the trial court improperly applied section 316.1932, we conclude that the trial court erred in requiring the State to show that a breath or urine test was impractical or impossible before allowing admission of the blood test.”

State v. Hilton (1986) fladistctapp · cites it 20× “1 The highway patrolman then advised the defendant of Florida’s implied consent law (§ 316.1932, Fla.Stat.) and requested the attending nurse to obtain a blood sample from the defendant.”

State v. McInnis (1991) fladistctapp · cites it 17× “1980); § 316.1932, Fla. Stat. (1989). [14] This option, however, is not without consequences.”

Show all 275 citing cases →

— 316.1932(1) — 6 cases

State v. Kliphouse (2000) fladistctapp “See §§ 316.1932 and 316.1933, Fla. Stat. (1999).”

State v. McInnis (1991) fladistctapp “1980); § 316.1932, Fla. Stat. (1989). [14] This option, however, is not without consequences.”

State v. Bastos (2008) fladistctapp

State v. Gilliland (1991) flacirct

Laws v. State (2014) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(1)(F) — 1 case

State v. Burkard (1983) flactyct50

— 316.1932(1)(a) — 56 cases

State v. Montello (2004) fladistctapp “As did the court in Pierre , we rephrase the question certified by the county court: Does section 316.1932, Florida Statutes (2002), require that urine testing procedures first be "approved" by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement before they may be administered to persons…”

Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Hernandez (2011) fla “The obligation to submit to breath-alcohol testing emanates from section 316.1932, Florida Statutes (2006), [4] commonly known as the implied consent law.”

STATE, DEPT. OF HWY. SAF. AND MOTOR VEHICLES v. Whitley (2003) fladistctapp

State v. Slaney (1995) fladistctapp “(1991)] impose, in certain respects, higher standards on police conduct in obtaining breath, urine, and blood samples from a defendant in a DUI case than those required by the Fourth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court in Sambrine v.”

State v. Polak (1992) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(1)(a)(1) — 2 cases

State v. Bodden (2004) fla “*683 Bodden argued that section 316.1932, part of the implied consent law pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles, [3] requires that any scientific test conducted pursuant to the implied consent law, including a urine test, be an approved test.”

— 316.1932(1)(a)(1)(a) — 4 cases

State v. Busciglio (2008) fladistctapp

Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Escobio (2009) fladistctapp

FRITZ GERALD PIERRE v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2019) fladistctapp

DAVID OBRIEN v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2023) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(1)(a)(2) — 2 cases

Yankey v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles (2009) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(1)(b) — 16 cases

State v. Brigham (1997) fladistctapp

Lanoue v. Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement (1999) fladistctapp

State v. Polak (1992) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(1)(b)(1) — 4 cases

Everton v. Willard (1985) fla

State v. Donaldson (1991) fla

Yankey v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles (2009) fladistctapp

Kaiser v. State (1992) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(1)(b)(2) — 5 cases

DHSMV v. Alliston (2002) fladistctapp

State v. Miles (2000) fla

DEPT. OF HIGHWAY SAFETY v. Russell (2001) fladistctapp

Dept. of Hwy. Safety v. Farley (1994) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(1)(c) — 23 cases

State v. Kliphouse (2000) fladistctapp “See §§ 316.1932 and 316.1933, Fla. Stat. (1999).”

BYRON MCGRAW v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2018) fladistctapp “See §§ 316.1932, .1933, .1934, Fla. Stat. (2015).”

State v. Serrago (2004) fladistctapp “1933, and finding that the trial court improperly applied section 316.1932, we conclude that the trial court erred in requiring the State to show that a breath or urine test was impractical or impossible before allowing admission of the blood test.”

State v. McInnis (1991) fladistctapp “1980); § 316.1932, Fla. Stat. (1989). [14] This option, however, is not without consequences.”

— 316.1932(1)(f) — 28 cases

Unruh v. State (1996) fla “See § 316.1932(1)(f)3., Fla.Stat. (1995). [8] New York, like Florida, does not have a statutory requirement that the defendant be affirmatively advised of the right to an independent blood test.”

State v. Strong (1987) fla

State v. Durkee (1991) fladistctapp

State v. Mehl (1992) fladistctapp

Drury v. Harding (1984) fla

— 316.1932(1)(f)(4) — 1 case

State v. Muldowny (2004) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(7)(b)(2) — 1 case

Carrizosa v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles (2013) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(7)(b)(l) — 1 case

Carrizosa v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles (2013) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(b) — 3 cases

State v. Catron (1991) flactyct28

State v. Hoff (1991) flactyct48

State v. Pagnam (1991) flactyct43

— 316.1932(b)(1) — 5 cases

State v. Paskalic (1987) flactyct50

State v. Humphries (1987) flactyct50

State v. Dekay (1987) flactyct50

State v. Bankston (1987) flactyct50

State v. Cain (1990) flactyct41

— 316.1932(c) — 2 cases

Favitta v. State (1984) flacirct

Jones v. State (1989) flacirct

— 316.1932(e)(1) — 1 case

Rocca v. State (1990) flacirct

— 316.1932(f) — 3 cases

State v. Giangrande (1989) flacirct

State v. Hamilton (1983) flactyct64

State v. Bennett (1988) flactyct64

— 316.1932(f)(1) — 4 cases

State v. Call (1985) flactyct58

State v. Black (1988) flactyct64

State v. Hoff (1991) flactyct48

State v. Wilkison (1989) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(f)(3) — 1 case

State v. Lambert (1984) flactyct64

— 316.1932(l)(a) — 33 cases

Nader v. Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles (2012) fla “3 First Certified Question Statutory Scheme for Florida’s Implied Consent Law Section 316.1932, Florida Statutes (2007), commonly known as Florida’s implied consent law, addresses in three separate provisions the circumstances under which a driver is required to submit to…”

State v. Holland (2011) fladistctapp

State v. Bodden (2002) fladistctapp

State v. Hilton (1986) fladistctapp “1 The highway patrolman then advised the defendant of Florida’s implied consent law (§ 316.1932, Fla.Stat.) and requested the attending nurse to obtain a blood sample from the defendant.”

— 316.1932(l)(a)(2)(e) — 1 case

State v. Schreiber (2003) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(l)(a)(l) — 2 cases

State v. Bodden (2002) fladistctapp

State v. Korth (2004) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(l)(a)(l)(a) — 2 cases

Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Nader (2009) fladistctapp

Hammons v. State (2015) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(l)(b) — 10 cases

State v. Castillo (1988) fladistctapp

State v. Cubic (2007) fladistctapp

State v. Snow (1991) flactyct3

State v. Martin (1988) flactyct64

State v. Evans (1991) flacirct

— 316.1932(l)(b)(2) — 2 cases

State v. Bodden (2002) fladistctapp

Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Wiggen (2014) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(l)(b)(l) — 3 cases

State v. Hill (1987) flactyct50

State v. Woods (1989) flacirct

State v. Durkee (1990) flacirct

— 316.1932(l)(c) — 14 cases

State v. Geiss (2011) fladistctapp “Implied Consent Law The trial court also erred in finding that the search in this case violated Florida's implied consent statute, section 316.1932, Florida Statutes (2009).”

Luis A. Montes-Valeton v. State of Florida (2017) fla

State v. Dubiel (2007) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(l)(d) — 1 case

— 316.1932(l)(e) — 3 cases

State v. Dubiel (2007) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(l)(f) — 18 cases

Wicky v. Oxonian (2009) fladistctapp

State v. Unruh (1994) fladistctapp

Strong v. State (1985) fladistctapp

Wissel v. State (1997) fladistctapp

State v. Walther (1988) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(l)(f)(2) — 2 cases

State v. Lendway (1988) fladistctapp

State v. Barnes (1987) fladistctapp

— 316.1932(l)(f)(3) — 5 cases

State v. Unruh (1994) fladistctapp

State v. Thomas (1987) flacirct

State v. Pignone (1984) flactyct48

State v. Gomisor (1989) flactyct50

State v. Brennick (1991) flactyct49

— 316.1932(l)(f)(c) — 1 case

State v. Paschall (1990) flactyct64

— 316.1932(l)(f)(l) — 6 cases

State v. Bodden (2002) fladistctapp

Gargone v. State (1987) fladistctapp

Phillips v. State (1993) fladistctapp

State v. Salisbury (1987) flactyct64

State v. Schurr (1986) flacirct

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.