State v. Remai

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Remai

18 Fla. Supp. 2d 189

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 1986

DocketCase No. 85-251 AC

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 189 (State v. Remai) 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. Remai, 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 189 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, MIKEAL J. REMAI, was arrested and charged with [190]*190driving under the influence and failing to drive within a single lane. Breath samples were taken using an Indium Crimper. The criminalist tested the first sample and obtained a reading of .06. He tested the second sample and obtained a reading of .14. Having two inconsistent readings, the criminalist decided to test the third sample, which he did and obtained a result of .14.

Appellee moved to suppress the evidence arguing he was denied the opportunity to test the third sample. The trial Court agreed with Appellee and suppressed the sample because of the discrepancy in the results.

The State contends the trial Court erred in granting the Motion to Suppress in that any disparity in the sampling goes to the weight and credibility of the evidence, not it’s admissibility. The State’s position is correct. Behm v. Division of Transportation, 336 So.2d 579 (Fla. 1976). Accordingly, the Order entered by the trial Court suppressing the evidence be and the same is hereby reversed and the matter is remanded to the lower Court with instructions to proceed to trial.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, MIKEAL J. REMAI, was arrested and charged with [190]*190driving under the influence and failing to drive within a single lane. Breath samples were taken using an Indium Crimper. The criminalist tested the first sample and obtained a reading of .06. He tested the second sample and obtained a reading of .14. Having two inconsistent readings, the criminalist decided to test the third sample, which he did and obtained a result of .14.

Appellee moved to suppress the evidence arguing he was denied the opportunity to test the third sample. The trial Court agreed with Appellee and suppressed the sample because of the discrepancy in the results.

The State contends the trial Court erred in granting the Motion to Suppress in that any disparity in the sampling goes to the weight and credibility of the evidence, not it’s admissibility. The State’s position is correct. Behm v. Division of Transportation, 336 So.2d 579 (Fla. 1976). Accordingly, the Order entered by the trial Court suppressing the evidence be and the same is hereby reversed and the matter is remanded to the lower Court with instructions to proceed to trial.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Fla. Supp. 2d 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-remai-flacirct-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack