City of Miami v. Dalrymple

Miami-Dade County Circuit Court

City of Miami v. Dalrymple

5 Fla. Supp. 193

CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County

DecidedMarch 4, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Fla. Supp. 193 (City of Miami v. Dalrymple) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Miami v. Dalrymple, 5 Fla. Supp. 193 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

VINCENT C. GIBLIN, Circuit Judge.

The appellant’s conviction of’ operating an automobile while under the influence of intoxicants was based primarily on the testimony of the arresting officer who testified frankly as to his inability to determine that the appellant, at the time of the arrest, was under the influence of intoxicants. The officer testified that the appellant walked “all right” and that his speech was clear and concise, although he was “excited.”

The deficiency of proof was not supplied, in my opinion, by the alleged result of a drunkometer test to which the appellant was involuntarily subjected. Even if the result of the test was properly admitted in evidence, I have no judicial knowledge of its scientific accuracy. I seriously question its accuracy. Furthermore, the test is conducted privately by police officers and the evidence as to the result is merely what they say it was.

The judgment appealed from is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

VINCENT C. GIBLIN, Circuit Judge.

The appellant’s conviction of’ operating an automobile while under the influence of intoxicants was based primarily on the testimony of the arresting officer who testified frankly as to his inability to determine that the appellant, at the time of the arrest, was under the influence of intoxicants. The officer testified that the appellant walked “all right” and that his speech was clear and concise, although he was “excited.”

The deficiency of proof was not supplied, in my opinion, by the alleged result of a drunkometer test to which the appellant was involuntarily subjected. Even if the result of the test was properly admitted in evidence, I have no judicial knowledge of its scientific accuracy. I seriously question its accuracy. Furthermore, the test is conducted privately by police officers and the evidence as to the result is merely what they say it was.

The judgment appealed from is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Fla. Supp. 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-miami-v-dalrymple-flacirct11mia-1954.