State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Edenfield
58 So. 3d 904
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles sought certiorari review of a circuit court order that vacated an administrative driver’s license suspension, finding due process due to telephonic appearance of a witness.
- Edenfield was stopped for speeding; an odor of alcohol and impairment signs led to a breath test with a breath-alcohol ratio above the legal limit, resulting in suspension.
- During the administrative hearing, Edenfield subpoenaed Thomason, the inspector of breath machines; Thomason appeared by telephone over Edenfield’s objection, and Edenfield did not examine Thomason.
- The hearing officer upheld the suspension; Edenfield petitioned for certiorari in the circuit court, which vacated the suspension and ordered a new proceeding.
- The Department sought second-tier certiorari review, challenging whether the circuit court properly applied law and ensured due process.
- The Florida Supreme Court denied certiorari, holding no clearly established principle of law was violated and that no basis for second-tier relief existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court correctly applied second-tier certiorari standards | Edenfield | Department | Denied; no clearly established principle violated |
| Whether telephonic appearance violated due process in cross-examining a witness | Edenfield | Department | Denied; no controlling precedent requiring live appearance |
Key Cases Cited
- Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93 (Fla.1983) (misapplication of law not clearly established as miscarriage of justice)
- Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885 (Fla.2003) (established law includes statutes, rules, or constitutional provisions)
- Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679 (Fla.2000) (interpretation of law must be clearly established; misapplication not enough)
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla.1995) (certiorari review is narrow; backstop for grievous errors)
- Lee v. DHSMV, 4 So.3d 754 (Fla.1st DCA 2009) (meaningful opportunity to cross-examine related to reports; telephonic issues discussed)
- Greenberg v. Simms Merchant Police Service, 410 So.2d 566 (Fla.1st DCA 1982) (telephonic appearance allowed in unemployment context)
- Burton v. Housing Auth. of City of Tampa, 874 So.2d 6 (Fla.2d DCA 2004) (distinguishes misapplication of correct law from violation of clearly established law)
- Manatee County v. City of Bradenton, 828 So.2d 1084 (Fla.2d DCA 2002) (illustrates limits of clearly established law in certiorari context)
- Lee v. DHSMV, 4 So.3d 754 (Fla.1st DCA 2009) (telephonic appearance context discussed)