State v. Geiss
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11414
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Geiss was stopped for weaving and refused field sobriety testing and a breath test; police obtained a blood draw warrant after arrest for DUI.
- Affidavit alleged probable cause to believe blood contained alcohol and was related to a DUI offense; included Geiss's prior DUI history.
- A county judge issued the warrant authorizing blood extraction for evidence in the DUI case; Geiss was conscious during the procedure with no injury.
- Geiss moved to suppress the blood evidence as violation of privacy, implied consent, and the warrant statute; trial court granted suppression.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding the warrant was invalid under the warrant statute but the suppression was not warranted due to good faith reliance on a judge’s authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Privacy right under Florida Constitution | Geiss argues the warrant violates Article I, §23 privacy. | State contends privacy is not violated because Fourth Amendment standards apply. | Warrant did not violate state privacy right. |
| Implied consent statute effect when a warrant is used | Implied consent bars warrant-based blood draws absent exigent circumstances. | Implied consent does not preclude lawful warrant-based blood draws. | Implied consent statute does not preclude obtaining blood via a valid warrant. |
| Warren t statute authorization for blood draws in misdemeanor context | Warrant must align with 933.02(2)(a) as property used to commit a misdemeanor. | Blood constitutes evidentiary property and may be seized under 933.02(3) for felony evidence. | Blood cannot be drawn under 933.02 as ‘used as a means to commit’ misdemeanor DUI; warrant improper. |
| Good faith exception to the exclusionary rule | Leon good faith should not save suppressed blood results where warrant is invalid. | Officer reliance on judge’s authorization supports application of Leon. | Blood test results should not be suppressed under the good faith exception; remand for proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (Supreme Court, 1966) (blood draw as a Fourth Amendment search with exigent circumstances)
- State v. Quinn, 41 So.3d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (de novo review of law application to undisputed facts)
- State v. Murray, 51 So.3d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (admissibility of blood test results obtained independently of implied consent statute)
- Robertson v. State, 604 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1992) (blood test results admissible when obtained with medical consent independent of implied consent statute)
- State v. Williams, 417 So.2d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (implications of implied consent and blood testing in DUI cases)
- U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Supreme Court, 1984) (good faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Sambrine v. State, 386 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1980) (implied consent creates right to refuse testing; warrants discussable)
- State v. Isley, Isley v. State, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1102a (Fla. Brevard County Ct. 2004) (warrant status and implied consent interplay (cited for rationale))