STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
SELAH FOX
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision to suppress evidence of field sobriety exercises, not because the suppression was legally correct, but because the state failed to properly preserve the issue for appeal. The court emphasized that admissibility objections should be raised at trial, not on a motion to suppress.
The appellate court affirmed the suppression order, not on the merits of the prejudice argument, but because the State failed to preserve the issue for appeal by not objecting to the ruling or filing a motion for rehearing. The court found that admissibility objections must be raised at the time evidence is tendered, not on a motion to suppress.
[1] A motion to suppress evidence is limited to the validity of the seizure, and objections concerning admissibility must be raised when the evidence is tendered.
[2] A trial court errs by ruling on the admissibility of evidence, such as unfair prejudice under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, in the context of a motion to suppress.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The only question before the court on a motion to suppress is the validity of the seizure. Objections that go to admissibility are to be present[ed] at the time the evidence is tendered.”
This quote establishes the legal principle that motions to suppress are for challenging the validity of a seizure, not for arguing the admissibility of evidence based on prejudice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State appealed an order suppressing evidence of field sobriety exercises in a DUI case. The lower court granted the motion, finding the exercises …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Non-Testimonial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
DAMOORGIAN, J.
The State of Florida appeals the county court’s order granting Selah Fox’s motion to suppress evidence related to her field sobriety exercises in the underlying prosecution for driving under the influence. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
In granting Fox’s motion to suppress, the county court recognized that evidence relating to field sobriety exercises are non-testimonial in nature and therefore not subject to suppression based on the officer’s failure to advise Fox of her Miranda1 rights. Nonetheless, the county court granted the motion based on unfair prejudice. Specifically, pointing to evidence suggesting Fox was unable to perform the field sobriety exercises due to injuries she sustained in the accident, it concluded “the field sobriety exercises are more prejudicial than helpful in this particular case.” The State did not object to the ruling or otherwise argue below that the county court applied the wrong test in granting the motion to suppress. ———————————————————————————————————— Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Here, while the county court did not explicitly reference section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2021), which provides that “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,” it appears the court relied on that rule of evidence in granting the motion to suppress. This was clearly error as “[t]he only question before the court on a motion to suppress is the validity of the seizure. Objections that go to admissibility are to be present[ed] at the time the evidence is tendered.” State v. Brown, 257 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (internal citation omitted). Thus, the admissibility of the evidence relating to Fox’s field sobriety exercises was irrelevant to the court’s inquiry on the motion to suppress. See id.
Nevertheless, we are compelled to affirm in this case for lack of preservation. As noted above, the State did not object after the county court announced its ruling or file a motion for rehearing. Consequently, the county court was not placed on notice of the error or provided the opportunity to correct the error. See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1978) (explaining that a properly preserved argument “places the trial judge on notice that error may have been committed, and provides [the judge] an opportunity to correct it at an early stage of the proceedings,” while a lack of preservation produces “[d]elay and an unnecessary use of the appellate process”). As the State does not argue fundamental error on appeal, affirmance is required.
Affirmed.
CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Brown, 257 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)