Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial
Action, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles:
DRIVER’S LICENSES – Implied Consent – Miranda rights – there is no evidence
to support Petitioner’s argument that she was confused between her right to
remain silent and the officer’s request for the Petitioner to take the breath
test – hearing officer is not required to believe the testimony of any witness,
even if unrebutted -- Petition denied. Barrett v. Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles,
No. 04-0019AP-88A (
IN AND
APPELLATE
DIVISION
PATRICIA B. BARRETT,
Petitioner,
vs.
Appeal No. 04-0019AP-88A
UCN522004AP000019XXXXCV
STATE OF
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR
VEHICLES,
DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES,
Respondent.
____________________________________________/
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Petition
for Writ of Certiorari and the Response. Upon consideration of the same, the record and
being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds that the Department observed
the essential requirements of law, the Final Order of License Suspension,
entered February 5, 2004, is supported by competent substantial evidence,
and the Petitioner, Patricia B Barrett, was accorded procedural due process
in the proceedings below. See
Vichich v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 799 So.2d
1069, 1073 (
Barrett argues that the hearing officer erred in failing to invalidate her license suspension as the evidence before the hearing officer established that Barrett was misled by being advised of her Miranda rights first and then later advised of the implied consent warning. However, other than her own testimony, there is no evidence to support Barrett’s assertion that she was confused over her right to remain silent and the officer’s request for Barrett to take the breath test. As the trier of fact, the hearing officer is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the witnesses. See Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Satter, 643 So.2d 692, 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Insofar as Barrett’s testimony conflicted with documents provided by law enforcement, it was for the hearing officer to resolve. See id. Further, the hearing officer is not required to believe the testimony of any witness, even if unrebutted. See Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Dean, 662 So.2d 371, 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); see also Kanakaris v. State, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Appeal No. 04-0020AP-88A (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. June 30, 2004). Accordingly, the Court finds that the Petition must be denied.
Therefore, it is,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for
Writ of Certiorari is denied.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
___________________________________
JOHN A. SCHAEFER
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Copies furnished to:
J. Kevin Hayslett, Esquire
Carlos J. Raurell, Assistant General Counsel
Bureau of Administrative Reviews