Palazzotto v. State
This text of 988 So. 2d 123 (Palazzotto v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Peter Palazzotto appeals his judgments and sentences for DUI serious bodily injury, DUI with damage to person or property, child neglect, and battery on a law enforcement officer. We affirm the judgments and sentences but write to address Mr. Palazzotto’s invitation to us to recede from State v. Catt, 839 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Keeton v. State, 525 So.2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Mr. Palazzotto s other point does not warrant discussion.
Mr. Palazzotto claims that the trial court erred in ruling that a law enforcement officer had probable cause to order a blood draw pursuant to section 316.1933, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Section 316.1933(l)(a) allows a forcible blood draw after a traffic accident with serious bodily injury where there is probable cause to believe that the driver was under the influence of alcohol. Despite Mr. Palazzotto’s invitation, we need not reexamine whether the odor of alcohol on the defendant alone is sufficient probable cause to order a blood draw. See Catt, 839 So.2d at 759-60; Keeton, 525 So.2d at 914. The odor of alcohol was not the only evidence of Mr. Palazzotto’s impairment. The speed at which he had been driving and his violent behavior at the hospital, coupled with the odor of alcohol, provided probable cause to order a blood draw.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
988 So. 2d 123, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 11437, 2008 WL 2853145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palazzotto-v-state-fladistctapp-2008.