IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
vs. Appeal No. CRC 03-00058 APANO
Opinion filed ________________________
Appeal from Order Denying Motion in Limine
Judge Thomas B. Freeman
Erin K. Barnett, Esquire
Attorney for Appellant
Danelle G. DeBerg, Esquire
Attorney for Appellee
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on appeal, filed by the State
The record shows that on October 5, 2002, the Appellee/Defendant, Cassaundra Eason (Eason) was arrested and charged with DUI. On the morning of trial, August 7, 2003, the State filed two motions in limine. The State’s Motion in Limine One sought to exclude Eason’s medical records. The trial court denied this motion as untimely. The State’s Motion in Limine Two sought a ruling on the admissibility of Eason’s urine toxicology report. The State argued that Eason voluntarily provided a urine sample and that the sample was not taken pursuant to the implied consent law. Without taking testimony or evidence, the trial court ruled that the urine toxicology report was inadmissible pursuant to State v. Bodden, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2382 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 30, 2002), wherein the Second District held that urine test results collected pursuant to Florida’s implied consent law were inadmissible.
The State appeals only the trial court’s ruling on its
Motion in Limine Two, denying the State’s request to admit Eason’s urine toxicology
report. The State argues that the trial
court erred in refusing to hear argument or testimony in support of the State’s
Motion and that the trial court erred in suppressing the toxicology report
since the urine sample was taken voluntarily. The trial court made no factual findings, rather
ruled, as a matter of law, that as long as a driver has a Florida driver’s
license, he or she is subject to Florida’s implied consent law and the urine
test results are inadmissible under Bodden. As the ruling consists of a pure question of
law, the standard of review is de novo.
In addressing the first issue, the Court finds that the
trial court committed reversible error. A
person arrested for DUI may volunteer to give a sample of his or her urine
for chemical testing purposes apart from the implied consent law. See State v. Slaney, 653 So.2d
422, 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also State v. Masters, No.
The Court finds that the State’s second issue is moot,
as the Florida Supreme Court has recently overturned the Second District’s
holding in Bodden.
It is therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
DAVID A. DEMERS
ROBERT J. MORRIS, JR.
Copies furnish to:
Judge Thomas B. Freeman
Erin K Barnett, Assistant State Attorney
Danell G. DeBerg, Esquire