JEREMY REESE

v.

DHSMV

PER CURIAM.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Jeremy Reese (“Petitioner”) timely filed this petition seeking certiorari review of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles’ (“Department”) Final Order of License Suspension.

Pursuant to section 322.2615, Florida Statutes, the order sustained the suspension of his driver’s license for driving with an unlawful alcohol level. This Court has jurisdiction under sections 322.2615(13), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(c)(3).

On July 17, 2008, Petitioner was placed under arrest for DUI and transported to the breath testing facility.

Petitioner submitted breath samples of .105 and .108. Petitioner’s driver’s license was suspended for driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level of .08 or higher. The Petitioner requested a formal review hearing pursuant to section 322.2615, Florida Statutes, and a hearing was held on September 16 and 30, 2008.

At the hearing, Petitioner moved to set aside the suspension on numerous grounds, arguing: 1) that there was no probable cause or jurisdiction for the traffic stop; 2) that there was no probable cause to detain Petitioner based on odor of alcohol alone; 3) that there was no evidence that Petitioner was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle; 4) that there was no probable cause for arrest based on Petitioner’s performance of the field sobriety exercises; 5) that the hearing officer refused to issue subpoenas for Roger Skipper, Laura Barfield, Jennifer Keegan, and Kelly Melville; 6) that the breath test machine used was unapproved for use in the State of Florida; and 7) that the breath test regulations are insufficient due to the lack of a uniform method of administration.

On October 2, 2008, the hearing officer entered a Final Order of License Suspension denying the Petitioner’s motions and sustaining the suspension of his driver’s license. “The duty of the circuit court on a certiorari review of an administrative agency is limited to three components: Whether procedural due process was followed; whether there was a departure from the essential requirements of law; and whether the administrative findings and judgment were supported by competent substantial evidence.” Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Satter, 643 So. 2d 692, 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

In a formal review of an administrative suspension, the burden of proof is on the State, through the Department. Where the driver’s license was suspended for driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level, the hearing officer must find that the following elements have been established by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Whether the arresting law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe that the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances.

2. Whether the person whose license was suspended had an unlawful blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or higher as provided in § 316.193.

§ 322.2615(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008).

In the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Petitioner argues that the hearing officer’s failure to issue subpoenas deprived Petitioner of procedural due process.

Second, Petitioner argues that the breath test results were inadmissible because the samples were obtained by using an unapproved and unreliable breath testing machine.

Third, Petitioner argues that the breath test results should have been excluded because the breath test regulations are insufficient due to the lack of a uniform method of administration.

Fourth, Petitioner argues that the Deputy did not have probable cause or jurisdiction to stop Petitioner’s vehicle.

Fifth, Petitioner argues that the Deputy did not have probable cause to detain Petitioner longer than necessary to issue a citation pending arrival of an additional deputy. Last, Petitioner argues that he was illegally arrested in violation of section 90.105, Florida Statutes. Conversely, the Department argues that the hearing officer properly denied Petitioner’s request for subpoenas for persons not identified in the statute that provides the hearing officer the power to subpoena witnesses.

Additionally, the Department contends that the Department’s Order sustaining Petitioner’s suspension conforms to the essential requirements of the law and is supported by competent substantial evidence.

At issue in the instant case is whether the hearing officer departed from the essential requirements of the law in interpreting section 322.2615(6)(b) to prohibit the issuance of subpoenas for specific persons identified in the breath test result documents submitted by the Department. After the Department filed its Response to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Petitioner filed a notice of supplemental authority citing the Second District’s decision in Yankey v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 6 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (finding that when the department relies upon a document prepared by an agency inspector to properly validate the breath test results, section 322.2615, Florida Statutes, permits the driver to subpoena the inspector identified in that document).

This case is controlling authority on the subpoena issue in the instant case.

In Yankey, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash a circuit court order affirming the department’s suspension of her license for driving with an unlawful breath-alcohol level. Id. at 634. The petitioner asserted that the hearing officer and the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in interpreting section 322.2615(6)(b), Florida Statutes, to prohibit the department’s issuance of a subpoena for the agency inspector responsible for testing the breath test machine and signing the agency inspection report. Id.

Pursuant to section 322.2615(6)(b), Florida Statues, a driver in a formal review hearing “may subpoena those witnesses who are identified in documents submitted by the arresting officer, which documents include the results of any breath test.” Id. at 637; see also § 322.2615(2), Fla. Stat.

The court noted that law enforcement had established a practice of routinely providing the department with a breath alcohol analysis report, a breath test affidavit, and an agency inspection report, in order to report the results of the breath test and support the license suspension. Yankey at 637. Based on the statutory and administrative code provisions regarding the procedures to establish the validity of breath test results, the court concluded that when an officer suspends a person’s license and “submits breath test results pursuant to section 322.2615(2) that include the breath alcohol analysis report, a breath test affidavit, and an agency inspection report, and those documents identify specific persons, the hearing officer is authorized under section 322.2615(6)(b) to issue a subpoena to any person ‘identified in’ those documents.” Id. at 638.

In the instant case, the Department entered the breath alcohol test affidavit, the agency inspection report, and the department inspection report into evidence. Prior to the hearing, the Petitioner requested that subpoenas be issued for specific persons identified in those documents submitted by the Department. Like Yankey, the hearing officer refused to issue the requested subpoenas asserting that section 322.2615(6)(b), did not authorize the issuance of the subpoenas.

Based on the holding in Yankey, the Court finds that the hearing officer was authorized under section 322.2615(6)(b), Florida Statues, to issue subpoenas to persons identified in the breath alcohol analysis report, the breath test affidavit, and the agency inspection report.

Thus, the hearing officer’s decision to deny the issuance of the subpoenas departed from the essential requirements of the law.

In light of this conclusion, the Court finds it unnecessary to address the additional arguments made by Petitioner and the Department.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Reese’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the hearing officer’s Final Order of License Suspension is QUASHED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this __28th__ day of ______December___________________, 2009.

___/S/_________________________ MARC L. LUBET Circuit Court Judge

_/S/__________________________ __/S/__________________________ C. JEFFREY ARNOLD

ALAN S. APTE Circuit Court Judge

Circuit Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via U.S. mail or hand delivery to Stuart I. Hyman, Esq., Stuart I. Hyman, P.A., 1520 East Amelia St., Orlando, FL 32803; and to Jason Helfant, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, DHSMV-Legal Office, P.O. Box 540609, Lake Worth, FL 33454-0609, on this __28th____ day of ___December_____________________, 2009.

_/S/____________________________

Judicial Assistant