District Court Holds That Blood Evidence in Felony DUI is Admissible Although When Obtained Illegally

In the matter of State v. Geiss the Fifth District Court reversed the trial court's order suppressing blood evidence in a felony DUI case.

After the defendant refused a breathalyzer test, the police obtained a search warrant in order to draw a sample of his blood for chemical testing. The trial court suppressed the blood results, hodling that getting a blood sample via search warrant violated: (1) defendant's constitutional right to privacy, (2) the implied consent statute, as well as (3) the search warrant statute.

The 5th District Court of Appeal did not agree with the first two conclusions but agreed the warrant should not have been issued under Florida's search warrant statute. The 5th District Court of Appeal also held the test results should not have been suppressed given good faith reliance by the police on a judge's legal determination 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 tests. After being arrested for a DUI and informed of Florida's implied consent law, defendant also refused to take a breathalyzer test. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant to forcefully withdraw a sample of defendant's blood. The sworn statement sought authority to take the defendant to a hospital to withdraw two blood samples. The sworn statement described defendant's prior history as follows: A computer check of Geiss's license status revealed four suspensions dating from 2006, plus a five year revocation from 2008 for a DUI conviction having a BAC of .249. The computer check also revealed Geiss had one prior DUI conviction from 2008 as well as a DUI Personal injury arrest from 2005 which includes a conviction of Leaving the Scene & Hit and Run Property Damage.

The sworn statement 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 court judge issued the search warrant, noting that the police were requesting blood samples for the purpose of obtaining property that has been utilized as a way to commit the crime of Driving Under the Influence. Law enforcement obtained a blood sample from defendant. He was conscious throughout the procedure. There was no accident, injuries, or death involved in the traffic incident.

Defendant was charged with a felony DUI based on 2 DUI convictions in 2005 & 2008, & with driving while license suspended. He filed a motion to suppress the blood evidence, contending it had been illegally seized in violation of his constitutional rights to privacy & against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as Florida's implied consent law. The circuit court suppressed the blood evidence. The court concluded that obtaining defendant's blood via search warrant violated his right to privacy, the implied consent statute, & the search warrant statute.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal held the circuit court erred in ruling the search warrant violated defendant's state constitutional right to privacy. The District Court of Appeal additionally held that the trial court erred in finding the search violated Florida's implied consent statute, section 316.1932, Florida Statutes (2009), since the search was carried out pursuant to a warrant, and the implied consent law deals simply with warrantless searches. The district court did agree with the circuit court's conclusion the blood draw was not authorized by the warrant statute, section 933.02, Florida Statutes, as blood is not property used as a means to commit a criminal offense. The District Court of Appeal court did agree with the circuit court that blood cannot 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 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 unlawful in spite of the magistrate.s authorization. Applying the good faith exception, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that the blood test results shouldn't have been suppressed.

Comments? Questions? Email Here

© HowtoAdvice.com