County Criminal Court:  CRIMINAL LAW – Urine Test – Bodden decision entered by Second District has been squarely overturned by the Florida Supreme Court – implied consent law for operators of motor vehicles does not require that urine testing methods be approved in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act - trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress must be reversed  -- Order reversed.  State v. Ortiz, No. 03-00018 APANO (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. Sept. 8, 2004).

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA,

                        Appellant,

vs.                                                                                            Appeal No. CRC 03-00018 APANO

                                                                                                UCN522003AP000018XXXXCR

EVELYN ORTIZ,

                        Appellee.

____________________________________/

 

Opinion filed ________________________

 

Appeal from Order Motion to Exclude Refusal

Judge Paul Levine

 

Stephanie Thompson, Assistant State Attorney

Attorney for Appellant

 

Kiersten Jensen, Assistant Public Defender

Attorney for Appellee

 

ORDER AND OPINION

 

            THIS CAUSE came before the Court on appeal filed by the State from the Order granting the Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Refusal of Urine Test, entered February 28, 2003.  Upon review of the briefs, the record, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court reverses the order as set forth below.

            The record shows that, on March 20, 2002, Ortiz was arrested and charged with DUI.  Ortiz failed the field sobriety tests and the breathalyzer test results were .074 and .069.  Law enforcement then requested Ortiz to submit a urine sample after reading her Florida’s Implied Consent law.  Ortiz refused to take the urine test.  Ortiz filed a motion to exclude the refusal of the urine test based on State v. Bodden, 872 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).  The trial court granted Ortiz’s motion by finding that if the urine test itself is not admissible, then the refusal to take the test should also be inadmissible.

            Even without a transcript of the hearing below, the Court finds that the trial court’s order must be reversed.  See Kanter v. Kanter, 850 So.2d 682, 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(stating that an appellate court may reverse an order or judgment even in the absence of an adequate record where such order or judgment is fundamentally erroneous on its face).  The Florida Supreme Court has squarely overruled the Second District’s Bodden opinion and has concluded that the implied consent law for operators of motor vehicles does not require that urine testing methods be approved in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.  See State v. Bodden, 2004 WL 792826 (Fla. 2004).  Accordingly, Ortiz’s refusal to submit to the urine test is admissible.  See State v. Kline, 764 So.2d 716, 717 (finding that when a defendant refuses to take a test designed to determine whether he is intoxicated, his refusal should not be suppressed).

            Therefore, it is, 

            ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Order is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for action consistent with this order and opinion.

            DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this ________ day of September 2004.

 

                                                                        ___________________________________

                                                                        ROBERT J. MORRIS, JR.

                                                                        Circuit Judge

 

 

 

                                                                        ___________________________________

                                                                        IRENE SULLIVAN

                                                                        Circuit Judge

 

 

 

                                                                        ___________________________________

                                                                        DAVID A. DEMERS

                                                                        Circuit Judge

Copies furnished to:

 

Judge Paul Levine

 

Stephanie Thompson, Assistant State Attorney

 

Kiersten Jensen, Assistant Public Defender