State v. Brice

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Brice

18 Fla. Supp. 2d 191

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 1986

DocketCase No. 85-170 AC

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 191 (State v. Brice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brice, 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 191 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

SHAPIRO, J.

This Court recently reviewed a similar factual situation in State v. Altamirano, 15 Fla. Supp.2d 97 (11th J.C. 1986). The Court concluded [192]*192that, based on existing case law, no right to counsel exists in situations such as that presented to this Court for consideration. With due respect to my learned colleague who dissents from this opinion, we are not concerned with findings by the trial judge on the issue of what eflbrts were made to contact the attorney. In addition, in a situation such as exists in alcohol-related arrests, a balance test must be applied. A fundamental fairness requirement should not override the rights of society to be free from individuals driving under the influence of alcohol on our roadways. To wait until a suspected impaired person has contacted his attorney might mean that the evidence is diluted.

Based on the foregoing, the actions of the trial court were incorrect. The Order granting the Motion to Suppress is reversed and the matter remanded for further consideration.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

SHAPIRO, J.

This Court recently reviewed a similar factual situation in State v. Altamirano, 15 Fla. Supp.2d 97 (11th J.C. 1986). The Court concluded [192]*192that, based on existing case law, no right to counsel exists in situations such as that presented to this Court for consideration. With due respect to my learned colleague who dissents from this opinion, we are not concerned with findings by the trial judge on the issue of what eflbrts were made to contact the attorney. In addition, in a situation such as exists in alcohol-related arrests, a balance test must be applied. A fundamental fairness requirement should not override the rights of society to be free from individuals driving under the influence of alcohol on our roadways. To wait until a suspected impaired person has contacted his attorney might mean that the evidence is diluted.

Based on the foregoing, the actions of the trial court were incorrect. The Order granting the Motion to Suppress is reversed and the matter remanded for further consideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Fla. Supp. 2d 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brice-flacirct-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack