State v. Ramirez

Miami-Dade County Court

State v. Ramirez

7 Fla. Supp. 2d 131

CourtMiami-Dade County Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1984

DocketCase No. 60205 MD

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 131 (State v. Ramirez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Miami-Dade County Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Ramirez, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 131 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

MARVIN H. GILLMAN, County Judge.

This case having come before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Breath Test and having heard argument of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

[132]*132ORDERED that when a motorist is arrested and charged with driving under the influence in violation of Section 316.193 Florida Statutes without being otherwise charged with an offense committed while driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that his normal faculties are impaired, said motorist is not subject to being required under Section 316.1932, Florida Statutes to give a breath or urine test under penalty of loss of driver’s license for six months for refusal to do so. A motorist who voluntarily takes a breath or urine test after being properly informed of the law and of his rights and obligations shall not have his test suppressed.

In the instant case the parties have stipulated that the defendant was not informed properly of his right to refuse a breath test without a penalty, i.e. no companion charge of a driving offense committed while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, hence no loss of license in the event of a refusal. Thus the defendant did not voluntarily take the breath test and was not properly informed of the law regarding Section 316.1932. Therefore, the breath test of the defendant is hereby suppressed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

MARVIN H. GILLMAN, County Judge.

This case having come before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Breath Test and having heard argument of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

[132]*132ORDERED that when a motorist is arrested and charged with driving under the influence in violation of Section 316.193 Florida Statutes without being otherwise charged with an offense committed while driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that his normal faculties are impaired, said motorist is not subject to being required under Section 316.1932, Florida Statutes to give a breath or urine test under penalty of loss of driver’s license for six months for refusal to do so. A motorist who voluntarily takes a breath or urine test after being properly informed of the law and of his rights and obligations shall not have his test suppressed.

In the instant case the parties have stipulated that the defendant was not informed properly of his right to refuse a breath test without a penalty, i.e. no companion charge of a driving offense committed while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, hence no loss of license in the event of a refusal. Thus the defendant did not voluntarily take the breath test and was not properly informed of the law regarding Section 316.1932. Therefore, the breath test of the defendant is hereby suppressed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Fla. Supp. 2d 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ramirez-flactyct43-1984.