District Court Of Appeal Holds That Blood Draw In Felony Dui Is Admissible Even When Obtained Illega

In the case State v

In the case State v. Geiss the Fifth District Court overturned the trial court's order suppressing blood test results in a felony DUI trial.

After the defendant refused to take a breath test, police obtained a search warrant to draw a sample of his blood for testing. The trial court suppressed the blood evidence, concluding that getting a blood sample by search warrant violated: (1) defendant's constitutional right to privacy, (2) the implied consent statute, & (3) the search warrant statute.

The District Court of Appeal disagreed with the initial 2 conclusions but agreed that the warrant shouldn't have been issued under Florida's search warrant statute. The district court also found the test results shouldn't have been suppressed given good faith reliance by police on a judge's legal determination stating that the search was legally authorized.

[randimg]

The defendant was stopped for failing to maintain a single lane. Defendant refused a request to perform field sobriety exercises. Subsequent to being arrested for a DUI & informed of Florida's implied consent law, he also refused to take a breathalyzer test. Police obtained a search warrant to forcefully withdraw a sample of defendant's blood. The affidavit sought the authority to take the defendant to a hospital to withdraw 2 blood samples. The affidavit described the defendant's previous criminal history as follows: A computer check of Geiss's license status revealed four driver's license suspensions dating from 2006, including a five year driver's license revocation from 2008 for a DUI conviction with a Blood alcohol concentration of .249. The computer check additionally revealed Geiss had 1 prior DUI conviction as of 2008 and a DUI Personal injury arrest from 2005 with a conviction of Leaving the Scene & Hit and Run Property Damage.

The affidavit contended that the pertinent facts of the arrest and concluded: Your undersigned affiant states he has probable cause to believe that the blood samples being sought contain Alcohol or Controlled Substances and is property concealed in the body of the driver, Gregory G. Geiss, causing impairment, in violation of sections 316.193(1)(a) or 316.193(1)(b), Florida State Statutes, DUI 2nd.

A county judge issued the search warrant, noting that police were requesting blood samples for the purpose of getting property which has been utilized as a way to commit the crime of Driving Under the Influence. Police obtained a blood sample from defendant. He was conscious throughout the process. There was no accident, injury, or death involved in the traffic incident.

The defendant was charged with felony DUI based on two DUI convictions in 2005 & 2008, & with driving while license suspended. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood results, claiming it was illegally seized in violation of defendant's constitutional rights to privacy and against unreasonable search and seizure, along with Florida's implied consent law. The circuit court suppressed the blood evidence. The circuit court concluded that getting defendant's blood by search warrant violated his right to privacy, the implied consent statute, & the search warrant statute.

The District Court of Appeal held the trial court erred in holding that the search warrant violated defendant's state constitutional right to privacy. The 5th District Court of Appeal also held the trial court erred in finding that the search violated Florida's implied consent laws, section 316.1932, Florida Statutes (2009), because the search was carried out pursuant to a warrant, and the implied consent law deals simply with warrantless searches. The Fifth District Court of Appeal did agree with the circuit court's holding that the blood draw wasn't authorized by the warrant statute, section 933.02, Florida Statutes, because blood isn't property used as a means to commit a crime. The Fifth District Court of Appeal court did agree with the circuit court that blood can't be drawn based upon probable cause that a suspect has committed misdemeanor DUI in light of the plain language of section 933.02, Florida Statutes.

The good faith exception holds that the exclusionary rule need not be applied when the police officer conducting the search acted in objectively reasonable reliance on an invalid warrant. The test for good faith is whether a reasonably trained officer would have known that the search was illegal notwithstanding the magistrate.s authorization. Applying the good faith exception, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that the blood test results should not have been suppressed.

by: renc84idla

POST COMMENT

Pursuing A Local Lease Become The Best Parent With These Ideas Journaling Ideas 7 Steps To Overcoming Hurtful Situations How To Make My Ex Boyfriend Want Me Again Micro Scooters: Ideal For Little Ones Create A Virtual Office In Manchester Stop Your Ex Boyfriend From Rejecting You Questions Regarding Marital Status Rule To Protect The Dentition Bali At Its Really Ideal Questions About Marriage License Laws Moncler Vest Represents The Best Way Taste