State v. Fardelman
This text of 453 So. 2d 1183 (State v. Fardelman) 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.
Opinions
This is an appeal from an order suppressing evidence of the results of an intoxilyzer test in a manslaughter case. An intoxilyzer is a device which measures blood/alcohol levels.
This case is like Drury v. Harding, 443 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and we are in agreement with the Drury ruling.. Thus we must reverse the order of suppression. Appellee here also argues that the intoxilyzer device itself was not approved by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as the statutes required. We conclude that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Rule 10D-42.24(5) does approve the device which was apparently used in this case, thus find appellee’s argument without merit. We certify to the supreme court the same question posed in Drury as being of great public importance.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
453 So. 2d 1183, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1760, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fardelman-fladistctapp-1984.