State v. Schrenker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Schrenker

863 So. 2d 461, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 255, 2004 WL 66689

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 2004

DocketNo. 5D03-2310

StatusPublished

This text of 863 So. 2d 461 (State v. Schrenker) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Schrenker, 863 So. 2d 461, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 255, 2004 WL 66689 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMER, J.

The State appeals the trial court’s order suppressing evidence consisting of appellee Jerome Schrenker’s urine test results. The trial court based its suppression ruling on the authority of State v. Bodden, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2382, — So,2d -, 2002 WL 31421575 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct.30, 2002), rev. granted, 853 So.2d 1071 (Fla.2003), which held that a urine test taken pursuant to Florida’s implied consent law, if not approved pursuant to the rule-making requirements of Administrative Procedures Act, is not admissible as a scientific test pursuant to the traditional rules regarding the admissibility of evidence. However, this court recently decided State v. Pierre, 854 So.2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), wherein we disagreed with the ruling in Bodden and certified conflict on the evidentiary issue. Accord State v. Masker, 859 So.2d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Relying upon Pierre, we reverse the instant suppression order and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. We also again certify conflict with the Second District’s decision in Bodden.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, W., and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

PALMER, J.

The State appeals the trial court’s order suppressing evidence consisting of appellee Jerome Schrenker’s urine test results. The trial court based its suppression ruling on the authority of State v. Bodden, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2382, — So,2d -, 2002 WL 31421575 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct.30, 2002), rev. granted, 853 So.2d 1071 (Fla.2003), which held that a urine test taken pursuant to Florida’s implied consent law, if not approved pursuant to the rule-making requirements of Administrative Procedures Act, is not admissible as a scientific test pursuant to the traditional rules regarding the admissibility of evidence. However, this court recently decided State v. Pierre, 854 So.2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), wherein we disagreed with the ruling in Bodden and certified conflict on the evidentiary issue. Accord State v. Masker, 859 So.2d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Relying upon Pierre, we reverse the instant suppression order and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. We also again certify conflict with the Second District’s decision in Bodden.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, W., and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

863 So. 2d 461, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 255, 2004 WL 66689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-schrenker-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack