TERENCE EVANS AND EDWINA EVANS, APPELLANTS,
v.
WESLEY P. HAMILTON AND KARENA R. HAMILTON, APPELLEES
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.
Terence and Edwina Evans appealed a jury verdict in favor of the Hamiltons following an automobile accident negligence suit. The central issue was whether Florida's accident report privilege, codified in section 316.066, prevented the defendant from cross-examining Mr. Evans about his refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test.
The accident report privilege does not apply to a refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test because such a refusal is not compelled by law and therefore does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court properly allowed the cross-examination about Mr. Evans's refusal to take the test.
[1] The accident report privilege under section 316.066, Florida Statutes, applies only to statements compelled to comply with statutory duties to report an accident, not to…
[2] A refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test is not compelled by law enforcement and therefore is not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination.
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 privilege does not apply to a refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test”
States the holding of the case directly
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTerence and Edwina Evans sued Wesley and Karena Hamilton for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. At trial, the jury returned a verdict findi…
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 Accident Report Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Appellants, Terence and Edwina Evans, sued appellees, Wesley and Karena Hamilton, for injuries suffered in an automobile accident. After trial, the jury returned a verdict for the Hamiltons, finding no negligence. During the trial and over the Ev-anses’ objection, the Hamiltons cross-examined Mr. Evans as to his refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test. He contends that this violated the accident report privilege provided in section 316.066, Florida Statutes (2000). We hold that the privilege does not apply to a refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test.
Section 316.066(4) provides that statements made by a person involved in an accident in order to complete a crash report as required by the statute, as well as the actual crash report, are not admissible as evidence in any civil or criminal trial. In Brackin v. Boles, 452 So. 2d 540, 544 (Fla.1984), the court held that this statute provides immunity only to “such statements and communications as the driver, owner, or occupant of a vehicle is compelled to make in order to comply with his or her statutory duty under section 316.066(1) and (2) [to report an accident]” so as to avoid a Fifth Amendment violation. (Emphasis added). The test to be applied in determining whether the accident report privilege is applicable is whether the privilege against self-incrimination was violated by requiring the person involved in the accident to answer the questions posed. See State v. Norstrom, 613 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla.1993).
The United States Supreme Court has held that “a refusal to take a blood-alcohol test, after a police officer has lawfully requested it, is not an act coerced by the officer, and thus is not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination.” South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 564, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983). It determined that the state does not compel a defendant to refuse to submit to a blood-alcohol test by giving the defendant the choice to submit to the test or not. Id. Such refusal may be admitted into evidence without violating the Fifth Amendment. Id.; see also State v. Sowers, 442 So. 2d 239, 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Because a refusal to take a blood-alcohol test is not compelled, and admission of such refusal does not violate the Fifth Amendment, the trial court did not err in finding that section 316.066 does not prevent the admission into evidence of Mr. Evans’s refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test.
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD, J., and GATES, MICHAEL L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. Draleaus, 226 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…est to be applied in determining whether the accident report privilege is applicable is whether the privilege against self-incrimination was violated by requiring the person involved in the accident to answer the questions posed.” Evans v. Hamilton, 885 So. 2d 950, 950-51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In the proceedings below, the trial court determined that the fender bender and the motorcycle accident were not separate accidents, reasoning that the collisions were causally connected and were a “continuous chain of…
-
Deivis Patino Ortega v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…cal test for intoxication" pursuant to section 316.1932(1)(a), Florida Statutes, is not unconstitutional and does not violate the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. [*2] Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution); Evans v. Hamilton, 885 So. 2d 950, 951 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that “[b]ecause a refusal to take a blood-alcohol test is not compelled, and admission of such refusal does not violate the Fifth Amendment, the trial court did not err in finding that section 316.066 does not preve…
Authorities Cited
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983)
- Brackin v. Boles, 452 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Norstrom, 613 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Sowers, 442 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)