State v. Whitehead

443 So. 2d 196, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25194
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 13, 1983·No. No. 82-2458·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Whitehead, contending that Section 316.-1932(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), which provides, inter alia, that:

“The refusal to submit to a chemical breath or urine test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section shall be admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding.”

unconstitutionally violates his privilege against self-incrimination, successfully moved in limine to prohibit the State from eliciting any testimony concerning, or commenting upon, the defendant’s refusal to submit to a test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood. The order granting the motion in limine is vacated upon the authority of South Dakota v. Neville, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983), and State v. Sowers, 442 So.2d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

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

State v. Whitehead, 443 So. 2d 196, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25194 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

443 So. 2d 196 (State v. Whitehead) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Turkel
11 Fla. Supp. 2d 98 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1985)
State v. Balboa
462 So. 2d 576 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Izaak Walton League of America v. MONROE CTY.
448 So. 2d 1170 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)