State v. Murray
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 26
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Murray and Brink involved in a crash while allegedly street racing, resulting in another motorist’s death.
- State charged Murray and Brink as principals to vehicular homicide.
- Troopers had no probable cause to arrest or obtain a breath, urine, or blood sample; they sought voluntary blood draws instead.
- Both men signed written consent forms consenting to blood draws, with troopers warning only that tests would check for alcohol and drugs and potential charges could arise.
- Trial court denied the first motion to suppress but granted the second, relying on Chu v. State to require implied-consent warnings; on appeal, the State argues Chu is distinguishable and that implied-consent warnings were not implicated.
- Court held: Blood draws were voluntarily consented to; suppression reversed and the blood results admitted under traditional rules; Chu not controlling since implied-consent law did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary consent defeats suppression despite Chu’s implied-consent framework | Murray/Brink consented; implied-consent warnings not implicated | Chu controls; implied-consent warnings required | Yes: consent defeats suppression; Chu not controlling here |
| Whether blood test results are admissible outside implied-consent framework under Schmerber | Testing conducted reasonably; not within implied-consent regime | Implied-consent framework limits admissibility | Yes: admissible under traditional common-law rules when voluntary consent obtained |
Key Cases Cited
- Chu v. State, 521 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (voluntary blood test allowed when implied consent warnings not implicated)
- Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1992) (implied consent applies only when testing provisions are utilized)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood test admissible when performed in a reasonable manner under traditional rules)
- State v. Bender, 382 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1980) (three-prong predicate for admissibility when implied-consent not invoked)
- Seibert v. State, 923 So.2d 460 (Fla. 2006) (mixed questions of law and fact in suppression rulings; standard of review)
- Dewberry v. State, 905 So.2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (suppression review; law-to-fact application)
- Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598 (Fla.2001) (de novo review of trial court’s legal application of law to facts)