175 So. 3d 319
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- The State appeals a trial court order suppressing Kleiber’s blood alcohol results based on alleged noncompliance with 316.1933 and Fla. Admin. Code R. 11D-8.012.
- Rule 11D-8.012(1) requires cleansing the skin puncture area with an antiseptic that does not contain alcohol prior to collecting a blood sample.
- In this case, Lieutenant Misti Rinaudo used dry, sterilized gauze (not an antiseptic) to wipe Kleiber’s arm because Kleiber was allergic to iodine; the gauze was discarded and the blood kit resealed.
- Kleiber was charged with DUI manslaughter, DUI with serious bodily injury, and two counts of DUI causing property damage; the blood draw was conducted after Kleiber consented to testing under Florida’s implied consent law.
- The trial court granted the motion in limine, applying a strict compliance standard and excluding the blood test results.
- The ruling was reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on substantial compliance with the rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict compliance versus substantial compliance | Kleiber argues strict compliance is required by 11D-8.012(1). | Kleiber argues the governing standard allows substantial compliance under 316.1933(2)(b). | Strict compliance rejected; substantial compliance allowed. |
| Effect of minor deviations on test admissibility | Deviations from the rule undermine test validity. | Insignificant differences do not invalidate a reliable test under 316.1933(2)(b). | Minor deviations may be permissible if the test remains reliable. |
| Appellate jurisdiction to review suppression | State questions the trial court’s suppression ruling on appeal. | State has appellate rights under Rule 9.140(c)(1)(B) to review suppression orders. | Appellate jurisdiction exists to review the suppression ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Geiss, 70 So.3d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (blood sampling constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Sercey, 825 So.2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (appellate review of non-final blood-evidence suppression)
- State v. St. Pierre, 693 So.2d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (316.1933(2)(b) substantial compliance principle)
- State v. Donaldson, 579 So.2d 728 (Fla. 1991) (insubstantial differences not rendering test invalid if reliable)
- Robertson v. State, 604 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1992) (evidence rules for admission of scientific results)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. Supreme Court 1966) (blood draw as search under Fourth Amendment)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. Supreme Court 1966) (Miranda warnings requirement (cited in context))