State v. Sandt

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Sandt

774 So. 2d 692, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1111, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2368, 2000 WL 1785975

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 2000

DocketNo. SC00-189

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 774 So. 2d 692 (State v. Sandt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Sandt, 774 So. 2d 692, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1111, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2368, 2000 WL 1785975 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision on the following question certified to be of great public importance:

WHERE THE STATE LAYS THE THREE-PRONGED PREDICATE FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANALYSIS SET FORTH IN ROBERTSON V [693]*693STATE, 604 So.2d 783 (Fla.1992), THEREBY ESTABLISHING THE SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY OF THE BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS, IS THE STATE ENTITLED TO THE LEGISLATIVELY CREATED PRESUMPTIONS OF IMPAIRMENT?

State v. Sandt, 751 So.2d 136, 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently answered this question in State v. Miles, 775 So.2d 950 (Fla.2000), wherein we held (1) the absence of appropriate standards with respect to the maintenance of blood samples drawn pursuant to the implied consent law renders rule 11D-8.012, Florida Administrative Code, inadequate and (2) the statutory presumptions of impairment are not applicable where the mandate for quality assurance under the implied consent statutory scheme is not enforced. Accordingly, we quash the decision of the Second District in part, approve it in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with our decision in Miles.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ„ concur. WELLS, C.J., and LEWIS, J., dissent.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision on the following question certified to be of great public importance:

WHERE THE STATE LAYS THE THREE-PRONGED PREDICATE FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANALYSIS SET FORTH IN ROBERTSON V [693]*693STATE, 604 So.2d 783 (Fla.1992), THEREBY ESTABLISHING THE SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY OF THE BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS, IS THE STATE ENTITLED TO THE LEGISLATIVELY CREATED PRESUMPTIONS OF IMPAIRMENT?

State v. Sandt, 751 So.2d 136, 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently answered this question in State v. Miles, 775 So.2d 950 (Fla.2000), wherein we held (1) the absence of appropriate standards with respect to the maintenance of blood samples drawn pursuant to the implied consent law renders rule 11D-8.012, Florida Administrative Code, inadequate and (2) the statutory presumptions of impairment are not applicable where the mandate for quality assurance under the implied consent statutory scheme is not enforced. Accordingly, we quash the decision of the Second District in part, approve it in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with our decision in Miles.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ„ concur. WELLS, C.J., and LEWIS, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

774 So. 2d 692, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1111, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2368, 2000 WL 1785975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sandt-fla-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack