NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
WADE M. LICARI
Appellant,
Appeal No. CRC 06-65 APANO
UCN522006AP000065XXXXCR
v.
STATE OF
Appellee.
__________________________/
Opinion filed _________________.
Appeal from a judgment and sentence
entered by the Pinellas County Court
County Judge Donald E. Horrox
Charles E. Lykes, Jr., Esquire
Attorney for appellant
C. Marie King, Esquire
Assistant State Attorney
ORDER AND OPINION
(J. Demers)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on
the defendant, Wade Licari’s, appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by
the
The defendant was convicted of DUI. He claims that his motion to suppress/ motion to compel should have been granted because the State failed to disclose the “source codes” for the Intoxilyzer 5000 machine used to test the alcohol content of breath samples. In its well-written and well-reasoned order, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion.
It is now well-settled that the State is not required to disclose the source code for breath test machines. In Moe v. State, 944 So.2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), a case rendered after the trial court entered its order, the District Court stated that: “It is without dispute that the State does not have possession of the source code because it is the property of CMI, Inc. and that CMI, Inc. has invoked its statutory and common law privileges protecting the code from disclosure. Therefore, the State cannot obtain possession of the code.”
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this Court affirms both the judgment and the sentence.
DONE AND ORDERED in
_____________________________
Joseph A. Bulone
Circuit Court Judge
_____________________________
David A. Demers
Circuit Court Judge
______________________________
Cynthia J. Newton
Circuit Court Judge
cc: Office of the State Attorney
Honorable Donald E. Horrox
Charles E. Lykes, Jr., Esquire