The Florida DUI statute that provides that driver’s give implied consent to blood testing for DUI as part of the privilege of obtaining a driver’s license in Florida both empowers police to obtain blood tests and imposes limits on that power. A Florida driver cannot decline to submit to blood alcohol concentration (BAC) testing without consequences, such as a 12-month suspension for a first offense and exposure to misdemeanor criminal charges for a second offense. However, some drivers may weigh the consequences of a refusal against the penalties associated with a DUI conviction and decline to give consent to BAC testing. If a person refuses to consent to blood alcohol testing, generally there are only limited circumstances in which an officer may forcibly extract a blood sample. The case of State v Langsford, 816 So. 2d 136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2002) provides a good example of what happens when the police exceed those limits.
In the Langsford case, the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence after she was involved in an automobile accident. When she was involved in the accident, she suffered a cut to her head. Although she refused to submit to a blood alcohol content (BAC) test, the police ordered a forced BAC test alleging a serious injury was involved, meaning the defendant’s cut on her head. The court held that the implied consent statutes limit the power of the police to require a person, who is lawfully arrested for DUI, to give samples of his/her breath, urine, or blood without the person’s consent, and prescribed the exact methods by which the samples could be taken and tested. The court denied the attempt of the police to use a provision that involves serious injuries inflicted on others by someone who is in an accident while under the influence of alcohol.
The court observed that the limitations imposed on the circumstances and procedures for obtaining BAC tests from drivers suspected of DUI represent a higher standard for police conduct in obtaining forced samples from a DUI defendant than those required by the Fourth Amendment and were entirely permissible as a matter of Florida law. As the officer did not have probable cause to suspect serious injury, the BAC result was suppressed.
The law is well settled that it is not an unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution for police to obtain a warrantless involuntary blood sample from a defendant who is under arrest for driving under the influence provided: (1) there is probable cause to arrest the defendant for that offense; and (2) the blood is extracted in a reasonable manner by medical personnel pursuant to medically approved procedures.
However, states have the right under their state law to adopt higher standards for police conduct than those required by the Fourth Amendment. It is the established law of this state that Florida’s implied consent statute imposes, 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.
Because the BAC test results were suppressed in this case, the prosecution was denied use of its most compelling evidence against the driver. The attempt by the police to use the cut on the defendant’s head against her as evidence of “serious injury” to a person injured in a DUI accident illustrates how sometimes the police or prosecutors in their zeal to obtain a conviction turn the law on its head. The provision authorizing forced blood tests in DUI cases involving serious injury was enacted to prevent innocent accident victims who are injured by intoxicated drivers. A Florida DUI attorney is familiar with such tactics and can help protect your rights under both the 4th Amendment and Florida law. We offer a free initial consultation so contact us today to learn about the potential defenses that may be available in your Florida DUI case.
