CYNTHIA PROCTOR BEDELL
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 First District Court of Appeal denied the State's motion for clarification regarding whether a urine test must be shown impractical before a blood draw in DUI cases involving suspected alcohol impairment.
The court denied the State's motion for clarification and declined to address whether section 316.1932(1)(c) distinguishes between urine test requirements for alcohol versus controlled substance impairment.
[1] Under Florida Statute section 316.1932(1)(c), the statutory distinction between urine test requirements for suspected alcohol impairment versus controlled substance impai…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCynthia Proctor Bedell appealed a circuit court decision in an Okaloosa County DUI case. The State sought clarification of the appellate opinion regar…
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 Implied Consent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
DENIED.
RAY and BILBREY, JJ., concur; WINOKUR, J., concurs with opinion.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ WINOKUR, J., concurring.
The State argues that the opinion should be clarified to dispel any suggestion that “a urine test for alcohol is available or even necessary before consent to a blood test is upheld.” According to the motion, under section 316.1932(1)(c) the State must show that administration of a urine test was impractical or impossible, thus supporting a blood draw, only when the officer has reason to believe that the suspect was under the influence of a controlled substance. When the officer believes the suspect was under the influence of alcohol, as here, the State must only show that administration of a breath test was impractical or impossible before resorting to a blood draw, according to the motion. This is because, the motion claims, no urine test can detect the amount of alcohol in the blood stream, so the Legislature must have meant to limit urine tests in this context to suspicion of driving under the influence of controlled substances. The State supports this contention with citations to circuit court opinions, as well as the Florida DUI Handbook.
I agree that clarification on this point is unnecessary, for two reasons. First, the question of whether a urine test was impractical or impossible before police could resort to a blood draw was always part of this case. If in fact the State was not required to prove this point, that suggestion did not appear here. Second, it is not clear that section 316.1932(1)(c) makes the distinction that the State asserts in its motion. Whether such a distinction exists will have to wait upon another case, one where this issue is properly before the Court.
_____________________________
Dustin Dewrell, Shalimar, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2