GARRETTE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 the trial court's decision to admit breathalyzer test results, clarifying that suppression is required only for gross misstatements of law by officers, not minor technical imprecisions or silence on certain procedural details.
The court affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the breathalyzer results. The court held that suppression is required only when an officer makes a gross misstatement of law, not when officers make technically imprecise comments about administrative procedures or remain silent on certain subjects, provided they made a good-faith effort to comply with the law.
[1] Breathalyzer test results may be suppressed when obtained as a result of a gross misstatement of the law by a law enforcement officer.
[2] Law enforcement officers are prohibited from making gross misstatements of the law when advising a defendant regarding a breathalyzer test.
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“an officer "cannot and must not improperly state the law"”
Establishes the principle that officers have a duty not to misstate the law, particularly in ways that coerce test submission
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw enforcement conducted a breathalyzer test on the appellant. Officers read the appellant the standard implied consent instruction twice when the ap…
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 Misstatement Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
401 NORTH DIXIE HIGHWAY WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. We affirm the outcome of the trial court in this case, however, we write to specifically discuss Appellant's reliance on State v. Henry, 42 Fla. Supp. 2d 42 (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. 1990). In Henry, this Court suppressed the results of a breathalyzer test that was conducted as a direct result of an officer's misstatement of the law. Id. at 44. The officer in Henry informed the defendant that if he did not submit to a breathalyzer test, the defendant would be incarcerated for three days over a long holiday weekend. Id. at 43. After considering the officer's gross misstatement of the law, this Court suppressed the results of the breathalyzer test and noted that an officer "cannot and must not improperly state the law" and that the facts of Henry equated to an officer informing a defendant that if he did not submit to the test "he would be shot." Id. at 44.
Subsequent to our decision in Henry, numerous appellants and defendants have argued that Henry stands for the proposition that any misstatement of the law by an officer necessarily results in suppression. We therefore clarify that the holding in Henry only applies to gross misstatements of the law.
In the instant case, law enforcement attempted to properly inform the Appellant of the law. The officers present at the Appellant's breathalyzer test read the Appellant the standard implied consent instruction as required by law and, upon the Appellant displaying confusion, attempted to read the Appellant the standard implied consent instruction a second time. The officers cautioned the Appellant that they could not provide legal advice and that the Appellant was free to choose whether or not to take the breathalyzer test. Although the officers did make certain technically imprecise comments as to administrative procedures that result from a refusal to take a breathalyzer test and although the officers were silent as to certain subjects, we disapprove of the Appellant's mischaracterization of the record when he asserts law enforcement told him "that if Appellant refused the breath test . . . he would not receive a temporary or ten day permit." (Initial Brief of Appellant at 12). A search of the record and trial testimony has failed to uncover any such statement attributable to law enforcement.
The officers in the instant case made an earnest effort to conduct the Appellant's breathalyzer test in accordance with the law. As Henry only stands for the proposition that breathalyzer test results will be suppressed if an officer grossly misstates the law, we hereby affirm and approve of the trial court's decision.
MILLER, OFTEDAL, KROLL, JJ., concur.