Williams v. State
167 So. 3d 483
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- William Williams was arrested for DUI on Oct. 4, 2013; within ~20 minutes an officer (without a warrant) requested a breath test and Williams refused. He had a prior refusal on record.
- Williams was charged under Fla. Stat. § 316.1939 (misdemeanor for second-or-subsequent refusal) and moved to dismiss on Fourth Amendment and unconstitutional-conditions grounds; the motion was denied and he reserved the right to appeal.
- The parties stipulated probable cause for the arrest and the request for a breath test, that Williams refused, and that he had a prior refusal.
- Williams argued the statute unconstitutionally punishes the exercise of a Fourth Amendment right (and conflicts with McNeely); the State argued implied consent and reasonableness justify warrantless breath testing.
- The court treated whether a warrantless breath test is lawful under Fourth Amendment doctrines (consent, search-incident-to-arrest, or general reasonableness) and whether criminal punishment for refusal is permissible when no warrant was obtained.
- The court held the warrantless post-arrest breath test would have been reasonable on the totality of the circumstances and therefore affirmed conviction under § 316.1939.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does statutory implied consent equal Fourth Amendment consent? | Implied consent statute cannot force waiver; McNeely suggests consent cannot be presumed. | Implied-consent statute binds drivers and supplies consent exception. | Statutory implied consent is not per se Fourth Amendment consent; voluntariness must be assessed. |
| May the State criminally punish refusal to submit to warrantless breath test (unconstitutional conditions)? | Criminalizing refusal penalizes asserting a Fourth Amendment right. | Refusal can be punished because a warrantless test would be reasonable. | Not unconstitutional here — because no Fourth Amendment right to refuse given totality of circumstances. |
| Is a warrantless breath test permissible as a search incident to arrest? | (implicitly) arrest alone does not justify intrusions beyond body surface. | Breath test is incident to arrest and justified. | Search-incident-to-arrest exception does not justify warrantless breath test. |
| Is a warrantless post-arrest breath test reasonable under a general Fourth Amendment balancing test? | McNeely requires case-by-case exigency analysis and cautions against per se rules. | Public safety, diminished privacy, and minimal intrusion justify reasonableness. | Yes — balancing state interest, diminished privacy, and minimal intrusiveness makes the warrantless breath test reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (ordinance-based, warrantless inspections cannot be criminally punished when Fourth Amendment right to demand warrant exists)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrantless blood draw upheld on exigent facts but emphasized privacy interests in bodily intrusions)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (no per se exigency for metabolizing BAC; exigency must be assessed case-by-case)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (breath/blood tests are searches subject to Fourth Amendment protection)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on search-incident-to-arrest tied to officer safety and evidence preservation)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent must be voluntary under totality of circumstances)