PLEASE BE SEATED.
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OUR FIRST
KISS TODAY IS STATE OF FLORIDA
V. BRYAN ALLEN REPPLE CASE
NUMBER
SC2024-1088.
>> Attorney: MAY IT PLEASE THE
COURT.
[LISTING NAMES] ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE THIS CASE ASKS
WHETHER TO INDISPUTABLY
ACCURATE AND HIGHLY
INCRIMINATING BREATH TEST
RESULTS THAT THE DEFENDANT
CONSENTED TO TWICE OVER MUST
NONETHELESS BE SUPPRESSED
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ARRESTING
OFFICER TRANSPORTED THE
DEFENDANT TO THE COUNTY
BREATH-TEST FACILITY IN THE
NEIGHBORING CITY.
THE ANSWER IS NO FOR TWO
INDEPENDENT REASONS ONE
TRANSPORTING A DEFENDANT TO THE
COUNTY FACILITY IS NECESSARILY
PART OF THE OFFICERS AUTHORITY
TO ENFORCE THE LAW IN HIS
JURISDICTION.
REGARDLESS THIS IS NOT THE SORT
OF ISSUE TO WHICH THE
EXCLUSIONARY RULE WOULD APPLY
ANYWAY I'M NOT EVEN SURE A
MOTION TO SUPPRESS IS A PROPER
VEHICLE TO CONSIDER THAT
QUESTION I'M HAPPY TO TALK
ABOUT OTHER ISSUE WHICH WE
THINK PROVIDE INDEPENDENT BASIS
FOR QUESTION WITH THE DECISION
BELOW OTHERWISE I WILLSTART
WITH THE MERITS.
MS. PULPITS OFFICERS ARRESTED
VERY BROAD AUTHORITY .
>> Attorney: 'S VISION CAN YOU
EXPLAIN THE RULE YOU'RE
PROPOSING YOU DON'T SEEM TO
DEFEND THE 4TH DCA CONTINUING
INVESTIGATION FROM WORK BUT I
PULLED OUT FROM THE BRIEF IS
INCIDENTAL USE OF LIMITED
AMOUNT OFAUTHORITY WHAT SORT OF
POOL ARE YOU USING AS AN
EXCEPTION WHERE DOES IT COME
>> Attorney Petitioner: WE ARE
NOT ROOTING FOR AN EXCEPTION I
THINK WE AGREE YOU HAVE TO LOOK
AT THE STATUTE THE POLICE
DEPARTMENTS AUTHORITY IS
CREATED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
IS GRADED BY STATUTE THERE
AUTHORITY WITHIN AND WITHOUT
THEIR JURISDICTION IS GOVERNED
BY STATUTE. WE HAVE AT THE
STATUTE HERE ON ALL THE WEB
ACTIVISTS ORIGINAL CHARTER AND
THE HOME RULE STATUTE THAT
GIVES THEM THE AUTHORITY TO
BASICALLY TAKE ON NECESSARY
STEPS TO ENFORCE THE LAW IN
TO I DON'T THINK WE ARE RUNNING
FROM THE FIFTH DCA RULE HERE I
THINK IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE.
>> Justice Meredith Sasso: DO
YOU AGREE WITH THE CONTINUED
INVESTIGATION FRAMEWORK AS
PROBABLY AS THE COURT IN RUPPEL
NOTED OUT A LOOSE TERM THAT GOT
USED AND REUSED THROUGHOUT
JURISPRUDENCE WITHOUT A ROUTING
CASE OR PRINCIPAL.
>> Attorney: DO THINK THAT THAT
IS CORRECT.
WE WOULD NOT CALL THIS ANY SORT
OF EXCEPTION WOULD NOT CALL
THIS A CONTINUING INVESTIGATION
EXCEPTION I DO THINK WE WOULD
ARGUE THAT AN OFFICER
INVESTIGATING A CRIME THAT
OCCURRED IN THEIR JURISDICTION
IS AN INCIDENTAL EXERCISE OF
THEIR AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE
LAW IN THEIR JURISDICTION WE
DON'T THINK THE COURT
NECESSARILY NEEDS TO REACH THAT
BROADER QUESTION OF CAN A
POLICE OFFICER LITERALLY DO
ANYTHING IN ANOTHERJURISDICTION
AS LONG AS THEY ARE
INVESTIGATING A CRIME THAT
OCCURRED IN THEIRJURISDICTION .
>> WHAT WOULD BE THE RULE WE
WOULD MAKE .
>> Justice: ARE YOU ASKING US
TO JUST SAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THIS STATUTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMPLIED CONSENT IN A DUI THEY
CAN CROSS JURISDICTIONAL
BALANCE BUT WE WON'T TALK ABOUT
ANYTHING ELSE?
>> Attorney Petitioner: I THINK
ALL THE COURT IS TO SAY TO
RESOLVE THIS CASE IS THE
IMPLIED CONSENT STATUTE IS
CLEAR OFFICERS ARRESTING
OFFICERS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
REQUEST A BREATH-TEST THAT IS
AN INCIDENT TO A DUI ARREST
THAT THIS EARLY IS NOT
ENCOMPASSED IN THE OFFICERS
AUTHORITY.
>> Justice Jamie Grosshans: AND
THE STATESMAN IT'S SIMILAR TO
SOMETHING SIMPLE AS BOOKING.
>> Attorney: CORRECT WE WOULD
SAY REQUESTING A BREATH-TEST IS
SIMPLY PART OF THE BOOKING
PROCEDURE WHEN THERE IS A DUI
ARREST SPECIFIC EXCEPT IT IS
NOT A MISDEMEANOR TO REFUSE A
BOOKING PROCEDURE IMPORTANCE
ACTUALLY ASCRIBED TO THE FACT
THAT THE PLANNING TO ENGAGE IN
THE BREATHALYZER EXAM WOULD
CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE OFFENSE
COMMITTED OUTSIDE THE
TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES OF
MIDLAND.
>> Attorney Petitioner: DON'T
KNOW THAT THIS ONLY CHANGES THE
OFFICERS AUTHORITY TO REQUEST
>> Justice John Couriel: GUESS
MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE
STATE POSITION I THINK I HAVE A
POSITION WHAT IS THE STATE'S
POSITION ON THE EFFECT OF THAT
FACT PATTERN ON THE OFFICERS
AUTHORITY FOR EXAMPLE LET'S SAY
MR REPPLE DECLINES TO
BREATH-TEST DO I NOW NEED A
DIFFERENT OFFICER TO CHARGE HIM
THAT MISDEMEANOR WORK IN THE
MIDLAND POLICE OFFICER CHARGED
>> Attorney Petitioner:
>> Justice John Couriel: SEEK
CHARGES THE STATE ATTORNEY WILL
CHARGE HIM.
>> Attorney Petitioner:
ADMITTEDLY I HAVE NOT THOUGHT
ABOUT THAT EXACT ANGLE SPEAKING
HERE ON THE FLIGHT I THINK IT
IS PROBABLY CORRECT THE POLICE
OFFICER THAT WOULD BE A CRIME
THAT OCCURRED IN ANOTHER
JURISDICTION AT THAT POINT.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A POLICE
OFFICER IN OUR JURISDICTION
ALTHOUGH HE ISALREADY IN
CUSTODY .
>> Justice John Couriel: I
THINK THIS SORT OF 35 SPOONFUL
IS KIND OF WEIRD WOULD SEEM TO
ME A LINE AS IF HE IS COMMITTED
I WOULD GUESS THE STATES
POSITION WOULD BE SOMETHING
LIKE ONCE THE ROAST IS COMPLETE
ONCE THE OFFICER HAD PROBABLE
CAUSE TO ARREST THIS PERSON AND
RESTRAIN HIS MOVEMENT IN THIS
ANALYSIS ABOUT RUBBING
AUTHORITY OF A CONSTABLE OR
WHATEVER SORT OF NOW IT IS OUT
THE WINDOW BECAUSE I RESTRAIN
THIS PERSON MOVEMENT HE IS
GOING FOR HOTEL AND IF YOU
COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME FOR
EXAMPLE IF YOU SPOKE TO ME
THROUGH THE SEPARATION OF THE
CAR HE HAS COMMITTED BATTERY ON
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I
THINK THE STATE WOULD SAY. I
DON'T KNOW HE HAS TO CALL
FIGURE OUT WHERE THE SPIRITISM
CAN CALL THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
THERE I RESTRAIN HIS MOVEMENT
BY ISN'T THE WORLD TO GET DR.
JUSTICE SASSO'S QUESTION WASN'T
THE RULE THAT THE STATE IS
COMPOUNDING MUCH BROADER THAN
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WHICH IS FOR
THE REST OF THE GUY I'M NOW
INVESTIGATING FURTHER CRIMES?
>> Attorney Petitioner: THAT IS
CORRECT YOUR HONOR I THINK WE
DO SAY THAT IN OUR BRIEF WHEN
HE IS IN THE POLICE OFFICER
LAWFUL CUSTODY OF THE POLICE
OFFICER HAS ARRESTED HIM FOR AN
OFFENSE THAT OCCURRED IN
MIDLAND HE DOES NOT HAVE TO
LISA MENTER TOMAN HE CAN
CONTINUE GET EVIDENCE FROM THE
SUSPECT WIPED HE IS IN THE
LAWFUL CUSTODY HE CAN CONTINUE
TO ACCEPT POLICE AUTHORITY OVER
HIM WHILE HEIS IN HIS LAWFUL
CUSTODY UNTIL HE RELEASES THEM
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE AT THE ORANGE COUNTY
JAIL .
>> Justice Meredith Sasso: EVEN
ACCEPTING THE RULE OF NOT QUITE
SURE WHERE THAT IS COMING FROM
WHERE WE CAN SAY THAT AN
INCIDENTAL EXERCISE OF POWER I
THINK YOU RECOGNIZE IS A
STATUTORY GRANT OF POWER AS
LONG AS WE INCIDENTALLY USE
THAT IS FINE EVEN THOUGH IT'S A
CREATURE OF STATUTE ACCEPTING
LIMITED BY SOMETHING THAT'S A
NATURAL CONSEQUENCE. WHEREAS
SOMEBODY IS IN CUSTODY THEY
SPIT IF THAT IS THE EXAMPLE I
THINK THERE IS THE SECOND LINE
OF CASES ON CITIZENS ARREST
WHICH IS INTERESTING IN WAYS
THAT YOU CAN ARREST OUTSIDE A
JURISDICTION BOOKING WOULD BE A
NATURAL CONSEQUENCE THEN WE
HAVE THE BREATH-TEST WHICH IS
KIND OF SEPARATE IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO PROVE THE CASE IT
IS NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE DUI
IS NOW A SEPARATE ACT OF
OBTAINING EVIDENCE EVEN WITHIN
YOUR RULE HOW IS THAT
INCIDENTAL?
>> Attorney Petitioner: I THINK
OUR RULE IS ANYTHING ANYTHING
THAT THE OFFICER IS DOING IN
FURTHERANCE OF SOME LEGITIMATE
LAW-ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IN
THEIR JURISDICTION WOULD BE FOR
EXAMPLE.
>> Justice Meredith Sasso: HOW
DO WE RUN THAT UP AGAINST HER
STATED RULES THE OFFICER CANNOT
COLLECT EVIDENCE OUTSIDE OF IT
JURISDICTION.
>> Attorney Petitioner: DON'T
KNOW YOU WHOEVER SAID AN
OFFICER CANNOT COLLECT EVIDENCE
OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION WHEN
THE OFFICER IS INVESTIGATING A
CRIME THAT OCCURRED IN THEIR
JURISDICTION .
BUT I THINK THE RULE IS IS THE
POLICE OFFICER HAVE THE FULL
POLICE POWER OF THE STATE TO
ENFORCE LAW AND ORDER IN THEIR
CITY. OBVIOUSLY THAT MEANS THEY
CANNOT GO TO ANOTHER CITY TO
ENFORCE LAW AND ORDER IN THAT
CITY. THE MAITLAND OFFICER
CANNOT GO TO ORLANDO AND PULL
PEOPLE OVER FOR DUI AND ARREST
PEOPLEFOR DUI GET WANT TO TRY
TO TAKE OVER MURDER
INVESTIGATION IN MIAMI. THAT IS
OBVIOUSLY NOT THE SITUATION WE
HAVE HERE.
WITHIN OFFICER IS INVESTIGATING
A CRIME THAT OCCURRED IN THEIR
JURISDICTION .
IT IS GOING TO BE THE CASE
EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME IS GOING
TO BE ALL OVERPOTENTIALLY ALL
OVER THE STATE CRIMES ARE NOT
LIMITED TO EVIDENCE NOT
NECESSARILY LIMITED TO THAT
SPECIFIC CITY.
I THINK IT WOULD HAMSTRING
OFFICERS IN THEIR ABILITY TO
ENFORCE THE LAW IN THEIR
JURISDICTION IF THEY SIMPLY HAD
TO RELY .
>> Justice Meredith Sasso:
POLICY ARGUMENT BY CONCERN BUT
THIS IS BAD FACTS MAKE BAD LAW
YOU PRESENTED A VERY
COMPLICATED ARGUMENT I'M NOT
SURE WHAT THE BOUNDARIES OF IT
ARE THE ROOT OF OUR AUTHORITY
TO CREATE THAT RULE IS OR IS IT
THE LEGISLATURE HAS CREATED A
VERY SIMPLE WAY FOR THE OFFICER
TO GET THIS THROUGH THE MUTUAL
AID AGREEMENT WAS LIKELY TO BE
EXISTED IN THIS CASE IT WAS NOT
ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE. NOT
OVERLOOKING THAT ASPECT OF
REALITY WHILE FROM A POLICY
PERSPECTIVE WE WOULD NOT BE
CONTENT WITH THE LEGISLATURE'S
CHOSEN POLICY TO EFFECTUATE
THESE AGREEMENTS THEN THE
NECESSITY FOR THESE OFFICERS TO
GO TO THE NEXT CITY TO GET A
BREATH-TEST INSTEAD OF CRATING
THIS COMMON LAWRULE IN A
STATUTORY CONTEXT.
>> Attorney Petitioner: WE
CERTAINLY THINK MUTUAL AID
AGREEMENT COULD BE USED TO
COVER THIS SORT OF SCENARIO
ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW YOU READ
THE MUTUAL AID STATUTE .
>> Justice Charles Canady: HELP
ME UNDERSTAND THAT WHO IS
AIDING WHO?
THIS IS ALL ABOUT ENFORCING THE
LAW IN MAITLAND AND PURSUANT TO
THIS CRIME THAT IS THERE I
DON'T UNDERSTAND WHO IS AIDING
WHO.
THE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
TYPICALLY IT MEANS AN OFFICER
CAN GO FROM ONE JURISDICTION TO
ANOTHER.
TO ENFORCE THE LAW AND THAT
OTHER JURISDICTION.
THAT DOES NOT FIT THE
CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> Attorney Petitioner: WHICH
IS WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO SAY.
YOU WILL LOOK AT THE MUTUAL AID
STATUTE IT REALLY IS THE
SCENARIO IT IS CONTEMPLATING IS
A JURISDICTION ONE POLICE
DEPARTMENT BASICALLY REQUESTING
ASSISTANCE FROM ANOTHER POLICE
DEPARTMENT YOU MIGHT HAVE A
PARTICULARLY LARGE EVENT MAY BE
THE PRECEDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES IS SPEAKING ORLANDO OR
SOMETHING AND THEY WANT TO ASK
THE MAITLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
FOR ASSISTANCE THEY CAN HAVE
THIS WRITTEN AGREEMENT THAT
ALLOWS THEM TO REQUEST THAT
ASSISTANCE THEY COME MAITLAND
POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN EXERCISE
AUTHORITY IN ORLANDO PURSUANT
TO THAT AGREEMENT OBVIOUSLY
THAT ISNOT WHAT WE HAVE HERE
THIS MIDLAND POLICE OFFICER WAS
NOT ASSISTING THE POLICE THE
ORLANDO POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS
ENFORCING THE LAW IN MAITLAND
THIS WAS THE FINAL STEP OF THE
DUI ARREST THAT OCCURRED IN
MIDLAND .
[UNCLEAR AUDIO]
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
CAN WE BACKUP THE SECOND. ONE
OF THE IT SEEMS LIKE PART OF
THE I WANT TO MAKE SURE
UNDERSTAND WHETHER YOU ARE
GOING ALONG WITH THIS PROMISE.
IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF THE
QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN GOING TO
LOOKING FOR AUTHORITY ANY
STATUTE ETC. I THOUGHT THE
LOGIC OF THE CONSTITUTION POST
1968 THAT 60S CITIES HAVE
DISMISSIBLE POWERS THAT ARE
GRANTED IN THE CONSTITUTION AS
PART OF INHERENT HOME RULE IS
SORT OF A SEED OF CHANGE
PRE-1968 THE LEGISLATURE HAD TO
AFFIRMATIVELY GRANT CITIES
WHATEVER AUTHORITY THEY HAVE
NOW. NOTICE CONSTITUTIONALLY
DERIVED. STATUTES ARE THE
SOURCE OF LIMITS ON CITIES
AUTHORITY.
THEN IT SEEMS LIKE IN THIS CASE
ALL OF THE ELECTRICAL WORK THAT
THE SIXTH DCA OPINIONS IS DOING
IS FLOWING FROM THIS IDEA THAT
THE EXTRATERRITORIAL POWERS HAS
TO BE AUTHORIZED BY THE
LEGISLATURE IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT
OF THIS CASE AUDIBLY COMES DOWN
TO WHAT IS THE REASONABLE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXERCISE
OF EXTRATERRITORIAL POWER WHEN
YOU GO IN AND TRY TO ENFORCE
THE LAW IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION
OR YOU'RE USING YOUR COURSE OF
AUTHORITY TO DO SEARCHES ETC.
ETC. YOU ARE KIND OF EXERTING
YOUR POWER INTO THAT
JURISDICTION. I DON'T KNOW IT
IS REASONABLY KIND OF ONE WOULD
REASONABLY UNDERSTAND THE
CONCEPT OF EXERCISING POWER IN
ANOTHER JURISDICTION TO INCLUDE
JUST TAKING SOMEONE WHO YOU
COULD HAVE DONE THE BREATH-TEST
IN YOUR OWN YOU CAN DO IT THERE
UNDER YOUR CONTROL. IF THE CITY
MAYBE THEY CAN SAVE MONEY BY
HAVING A FACILITY IN THE CITY
NEXT DOOR THE IDEA THAT THAT
CONSTITUTES IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE EXERCISE
OF POWER TO ME SEEMS LIKE A
STRETCH.
>> Attorney Petitioner: I THINK
THAT IS CORRECT YOUR HONOR WHEN
WE TALK ABOUT IN
EXTRATERRITORIAL EXERCISE OF
POLICE POWER LIKE I SAID
EARLIER I THINK WHAT WE TALK
ABOUT IS A POLICE OFFICER WHO
GOES TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION
TRIES TO START ENFORCING THE
LAW THERE ARRESTING PEOPLE
THERE FOR CRIMES COMMITTED
THERE. WHICH IS A FAR CRY FROM
WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
>> Justice Charles Canady: CAN
ASK YOU ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.
THE WAY THAT DEVELOPED IN THIS
CASE WERE THOSE ISSUES BRIEFED
OR ARGUE?
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AS FAR AS
YOU KNOW.
>> Attorney Petitioner: I
BELIEVE SO YES.
I KNOW IT IS AN OPINION.
THE ISSUE OF THE EXERCISE OF
EXTRATERRITORIAL AUTHORITY IS
MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> Justice Charles Canady: HIM
TALKINGABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES .
>> Attorney: THEY TALK ABOUT
THE COLOR OF OFFICE DOCTRINE
WHICH IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THE TERMINOLOGY.
>> Justice Charles Canady: IN
THE BRIEFING REVERSED THE
QUESTION IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT
YOU DON'T KNOW.
I LOOKED AT THE BRIEFING IT DID
NOT APPEAR TO ME THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES I'M MET
OMITTED THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES WERE ACTUALLY BRIEFED WE
HAD TWO SETS OF BRIEFS WE HAD
BRIEFS ORIGINALLY FILED 10
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BUT THE
ORDER ORDERING THE SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING SAID NOTHING ABOUT
READING CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
IT TALKED ABOUT BRIEFING THE
STATUTORY ISSUES.
AND OTHER THINGS RELATED TO
COLOR OF OFFICE ALL THIS
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PREMISE OF
THE CONSTITUTION THE QUESTION
IS IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS
ACTUALLY BRIEFED FOR PROPER
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT?
>> Attorney: I SEE THINK THE
SIXTH DCA BASICALLY THE ISSUE
IS FRAMED IT IS FRAMED AS A
STATUTORY ISSUE WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS IS BASICALLY
THAT THIS IS A STATUTORY
QUESTION.
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING THAT?
THE STATUTES CAN LIMIT IT IS
KIND OF LIKE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
LAW 101.
IF YOU LOOK AT 2B PRINCIPALITY
HELP GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY
BULBAR POWER PERFORM USEFUL
FUNCTIONS AND RENDER MUNICIPAL
FUNCTION MAY EXERCISE ANY POWER
FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES EXCEPT
AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BELOW. IT
SEEMS LIKE I DON'T THINK THAT
THERE IS ANYTHING IN THE
STATUTES THAT I THAT'S BEEN
INVOKED AS SAYING EXPLICITLY
YOU CAN OR CANNOT DO THIS AS I
READ THE SIXTH DCA ALL OF THE
WORK IS BEING DONE BY THIS
INFERENCE THAT IF A
MUNICIPALITY IS EXERCISING
CORTICAL EXIT TERRITORIAL POWER
THAT THAT HAS TO BE AUTHORIZED
BY THE LEGISLATURE I DON'T
THINK THE REASONABLE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXERCISE
OF EXTRATERRITORIAL POWER IS
EQUIVALENT TO ANYTHING THAT A
POLICE OFFICER DOES OUTSIDE OF
THE CITY THAT THE CITY THAT
THEY ARE EMPLOYED BY IT SEEMS
LIKE THAT IS NOT A STATUTORY
QUESTION THE SIXTH DCA WAS
ESSENTIALLY WHETHER THEY
EXPRESSLY SAY THIS OR NOT THEY
ARE INTERPRETING THIS PHRASE IN
THE CONSTITUTION AND I THINK
BECAUSE THERE ARE THESE OTHER
CASES WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT
CONDUCTING SEARCHES AND
ARRESTING PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF
YOUR JURISDICTION THERE SORT OF
BY ANALOGY EITHER ASSUMING OR
THEY ARE DRAWING INFERENCES
THAT READING THIS CONSENT
THING, INSTRUCTING, REALLY THE
REQUEST IS MADE OF THE PERSON
ADMINISTERING THE TEST FOR IT
IS NOT REALLY A REQUEST . IT'S
A LITTLE VAGUE AS TO WHO IS
REQUESTING WHAT FROM HOME.
ALL OF THE WORK HERE IS
BASICALLY TRYING TO BUY THE
SIXTH DCA IS TRYING TO FIT WHAT
IS GOING ON HERE AND DO THE
SAME THING AS GOING INTO
ANOTHER CITY AND KNOCKING ON
THE DOOR OF THE HOME OR
EVIDENCE THAT IS IN THERE OR
PERSON THAT IS THERE SORT OF
ORGANICALLY RATHER THAN THIS
SITUATION WHERE IT IS ARGUABLY
JUST VERY DIFFERENT IT IS
CERTAINLY MORE IT'S NOT IN THE
KIND OF COURT OF AN EXERCISE OF
POWER (NOT SAYING THAT IT IS
CRAZY TO CHARACTERIZE IT THAT
WAY IT'S ON THE FRINGE AT BEST.
>> Attorney: I THINK WE AGREE
THAT OUR ARGUMENT I GUESS THIS
IS NOT REALLY AND TRULY AN
EXERCISE OF EXTRATERRITORIAL
AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.
HE WAS ENFORCING THE LAW.
IN MAITLAND.
>> Justice Charles Canady:
LET'S GO BACK TO THE INFORMED
CONSENT STATUTE IF YOU LOOK AT
316 -1932 IT TALKS ABOUT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEST
BEING INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL
ARREST.
AND ADMINISTERED AT THE REQUEST
OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
THAT HAD REASONABLE CAUSE TO
BELIEVE THE PERSON WAS DRIVING
UNDER THE INFLUENCE. THIS IS
KIND OF AN RESISTIBLE
APPLICATION THAT IT'S
ORDINARILY NOT ALWAYS
ORDINARILY THAT REASONABLE
CAUSE ISCURRENTLY POSSESSED BY
THE ARRESTING OFFICER .
>> Attorney: THAT IS RIGHT YOUR
HONOR IF YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION
1D IT SAYS IF THE ARRESTING
OFFICER DOES NOT REQUEST
BREATH-TEST THE DEFENDANT CAN
ASK HIM TO. IN WHICH CASE HE IS
REQUIRED TO GIVE ARRESTING
OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO REQUEST
BREATH-TEST I TAKE IT UNDER MR
REPPLE'S VIEW THE BREATH-TEST
FACILITY SERVICES HIS
JURISDICTION IS NOT IN A CITY
HE JUST HAS TO VIOLATE THE
STATUTE OR ELSE HE CAN DO IT
ANYWAY I THINK THE DEFENDANT
CAN WAIT IF THE BREATH-TEST
RESULTS GOOD FOR HIM AND HE CAN
ADMIT THEM INTO EVIDENCE THEN
IF THEY ARE IN COMMITTING PEKIN
OBJECT AND HAVE THEM
SUPPRESSED. I DO JUST WANT TO
BRIEFLY TOUCH ON THE
SUPPRESSION ISSUE.
EVEN IF YOUR HONORS WERE TO
THINK THAT THIS REQUIRED A
MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT SOMETHING
OF THAT EFFECT. CLEARLY THERE
WAS AN ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN
ORANGE COUNTY AND THE MIDLAND
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
>> Justice Meredith Sasso: FROM
A PRESERVATION STANDPOINT I
KNOW YOU SAID YOU RAISED AT THE
SIXTH DCA WHITE SHOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN RAISED AT THE TRIAL COURT
AFTER ALL A MOTION TO SUPPRESS
HOSPITAL THERE IS A WORLD THAT
STEMS FROM THIS COURT'S
DECISION HARVEY V. FLORIDA YOU
DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A FUTILE
OBJECTION.
THE CASE THE SAME WAY.
I THINK WHEN IT IS TALKING
ABOUT TRIAL COURT I DON'T SEE
THAT LANGUAGE IT WAS MORE OF A
NARROW RULING I THINK.
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND UNIQUE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE
PERMIT HARVEY TO RAISE HIS
FUNDAMENTAL SENSING FOR THE
FIRST TIME ON APPEAL THAT
SEEMED TO BE APRETTY NARROW
RULING.
GENERALLY YOU WOULD AGREE THE
PRESERVATION ISSUES THE ISSUES
RAISED IN THE TRIAL COURT .
>> Attorney: I THINK HARVEY IS
EXACTLY THIS SITUATION WE HAVE
HERE YOU HAVE A DCA OPINION FOR
CLOSING THE ARGUMENT IT WAS A
SINGLE SUBJECT CHALLENGE THE
SENTENCING GUIDELINES IT WAS A
DCH OPINION PREDICTING THE
CHALLENGE. THE RAISE IT THIS
COURT AND UP WASHING IS
ARGUABLY EVEN MORE IN THAT CASE
THAT DCA OPINION WAS PENDING
BEFORE THIS COURT .
>> Justice Charles Canady: WHAT
IS THE PURPOSE OF THE
PRESERVATION RULE.
>> Attorney: THE PURPOSE OF THE
PRESERVATION RULE IS TO GIVE
THE TRIAL COURT THEOPPORTUNITY
SPEAKERS IF THE TRIAL COURT HAS
THE POSSIBILITY BECAUSE THE LAW
HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED BY
A DECISION IN THE FIRST DCA THE
PURPOSE OF THE PRESERVATION
RULE DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY.
>> Attorney: THAT IS CORRECT
YOUR HONOR THE TRIAL COURT HAS
NO TIME TO CONSIDER THE
EXCLUSIONARY RULE POINT BECAUSE
THE BINDING DCA PRECEDENT FOR
CLOSET .
>> Justice Meredith Sasso: DO
THINK THE FIRST DCA WAS TRULY
THAT BINDING IT WAS ON ALL
FOURS OF THE ISSUE. RAISED IN
THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
>> Attorney: YES BUT THE FIRST
DCA IN THE 2ND DCA AND THE
COLLINS DECISION HELD THAT
EVIDENCE THAT A POLICE OFFICER
OBTAINED OUTSIDE THEIR
JURISDICTION MUST BE SUPPRESSED
WE DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY
BASIS FOR THAT IN ANY STATUTE
OR THE CONSTITUTION THIS COURT
SHOULD NOT CREATE THAT REMEDY.
>> Justice John Couriel:
>> Justice Charles Canady: IF I
UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY FROM
READING THE OPINION IT'S ALSO
THE CASE THAT THE SIXTH DCA BUT
THAT ISSUE WAS PROPERLY BEFORE
BECAUSE THEY RESTED.
>> Attorney: CORRECT THE SIXTH
DCA HELD THAT SUPPRESSION WAS
THE PROPER REMEDY FOR THIS SORT
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
YOU CAN HAVE 15 SECONDS TO
FINISH UP.
>> Attorney: ON THE
EXCLUSIONARY RULE ISSUE WE ASK
THAT THIS COURT REJECT ANY
INVITATION TO EXPAND THE
EXCLUSIONARY RULE FURTHER.
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR
REBUTTAL.
>> Attorney: MAY IT PLEASE THE
COURT STUART IRA HYMAN
REPRESENTING
BRYAN ALLEN REPPLE
RESPONDENT
THIS CASE HAS IN MY OPINION
BECOME MORE COMPLICATED THAN
WHAT THE ACTUAL ISSUES WERE AND
IF THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
THIS CASE WAS BASED ON BOTH A
VIOLATION OF A STATUTE OR
POSITION. AND ALSO THE UNLAWFUL
USE OF THE COLOR OF OFFICE BY A
POLICE OFFICER OUTSIDE OF HIS
JURISDICTION. THOSE WERE THE
TWO ISSUES THAT WENT TO THE
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
THEY ARE ALSO THE SAME TWO
ISSUES THAT WENT UP TO THE
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
. I'LL BE AT EACH DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL HAD A DIFFERENT
MANNER AND HOW THEY HANDLE THE
SITUATION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO
THEM AND THE LEGAL ISSUES
INVOLVED.
SPITTER THIS IS RELATED TO WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING WERE THESE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WE'VE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT ABOUT
MUNICIPAL POWERS WERE THOSE
BRIEFED IN THE SIXTH DISTRICT?
>> Stuart Ira Hyman: I DON'T
BELIEVE SO.
THAT IS JUST SOMETHING PICKING
UP IN THE SIXTH DISTRICT
OPINION WITHOUT IMPROVING THERE
IS A LOT OF BRIEFING YOU HAD
TWO ROUNDS OF BRIEFING DOES NOT
SOMETHING THAT THEY ASKED TO BE
BRIEFED FOR THE PARTIES
ACTUALLY BRIEFED CORRECT.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman: I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL
WHERE IT CAME TO PLAY I BELIEVE
WAS DEALING WITH THE
BREATH-TEST AND THE BREATH-TEST
BEING A SEARCH.
I THINK THAT IS HOW IT KIND OF
GOT MATCHED IN WITH EVERYTHING
ELSE BECAUSE IT IS BEEN PRETTY
MUCH ACKNOWLEDGED WHETHER IT
REQUIRES A SEARCH WARRANT OR
NOT IT STILL A SEARCH.
I THINK IT IS BEEN THE
JURISPRUDENCE OF THE STATE.
>> Justice Charles Canady:
THAT'S AN ISSUE NOT ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
REALLY THE MUNICIPAL POWERBUT
ABOUT SEARCH AND SEIZURE .
>> Stuart Ira Hyman: I THINK
THE ONLY REASON HE CAME INTO
PLAY WAS BECAUSE OF THE
ALLEGATION OF THE UNLAWFUL USE
OF COLOR OF OFFICE.
BECAUSE IT WAS A BECAUSE IT WAS
THIRD INITIATIVE EVIDENCE
BECAUSE IT WAS A SEARCH AND WAS
DONE BY WAY OF IMPLIED CONSENT
MORNING WHICH IS UNDER FLORIDA
STATUTE 316 WHICH IS UNDER
FLORIDA STATUTE 316.1932 WHICH
REQUIRES CERTAIN PARAMETERS AS
AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE
TRADITIONAL SCIENTIFIC
PREDICATE OR SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE BUT THE LEGISLATURE
PASSED THE IMPLIED CONSENT LAW
WITH THE IDEA THAT IT WAS GOING
TO BE A SHORTCUT TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE IN BREATH-TEST CASES
WERE DUI CASES.
I THINK WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS
THAT IT STARTED OFF STATUTORILY
AND IT ALSO INVOLVED THE
UNLAWFUL USE OF COLOR OF
OFFICE. I SAY STATUTORILY I
THINK FLORIDA STATUTE 316.1932
AND AGAIN IF YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A
SUPREMACY OF THE TEXT TYPE OF
ARGUMENT OR INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTE, FLORIDA STATUTE
316.1932 SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT
ONLY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
CAN REQUEST A BREATH-TEST.
>> Justice Meredith Sasso: CAN
YOU KIND OF PLAY THAT ALL
TEMPORARY WHY IS IT THIS IS
INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST
IT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THERE IS NO
PETITION THE STATUTE ITSELF AS
TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I THINK
YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT BY USING
THE TERM LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER THE LEGISLATURE IS
NECESSARILY LIMITING THAT TO AN
OFFICER WITH AUTHORITY TO ACT
WITHIN THAT JURISDICTION?
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
THE REASON WHY I AGREE BUT YOU
COULD TAKE IT ONE STEP FURTHER
IT IS BEEN AT LEAST MY
UNDERSTANDING EVEN IN THE FIFTH
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE
BUSINESS CASE WHEN A MUNICIPAL
POLICE OFFICER VENTURES OUT OF
THEIR JURISDICTION THEY ARE NOT
CONSIDERED AT LEAST BY THOSE
DECISIONS TO BE A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PER SE,
THEY BECOME A PRIVATE CITIZEN.
>> Justice Charles Canady: WHEN
THIS OFFICER WAS TAKING THE
DEFENDANT HERE TO JAIL WHEN HE
CROSSED OUT OF THE MUNICIPAL
JURISDICTION OVER INTO THE
COUNTY HE WAS NO LONGER A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HE WAS A
PRIVATE CITIZEN TAKING THE
DEFENDANT TO JAIL.
IS THAT THE APPLICATION OF WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING?
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
DEIFICATION OF WHAT I'M SAYING
I SEE CASES THAT MAY BE AT,
LEGAL ANALYSIS DERIVED.
BECAUSE YOU CAN FIND CASES THAT
SAY THAT IF A BATTERY ON LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OCCURS
OUTSIDE OF THAT OFFICER'S
JURISDICTION IT CAN STILL BE
PROSECUTED AS A BATTERY ON A
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
BUT THE PREMISE OR THAT I'M NOT
REALLY SURE IS EVER BEEN
ADDRESSED LIKE IT HAS BEEN
ADDRESSED IN THIS CASE. IT IS
LIKE WHERE DOES THE SOURCE OF
THAT AUTHORITY TO BE A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN ANOTHER
JURISDICTION WHEN YOU ARE
MUNICIPAL POLICE OFFICER COME
FROM.
>> Justice Charles Canady: YOU
ARE ACTUALLY QUESTIONING IF I
UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY
CORRECT ME IF I AM NOT YOU ARE
QUESTIONING THE AUTHORITY OF
THE MIDLAND POLICE OFFICER TO
GO OUT OF MAITLAND TO TAKE THE
DEFENDANT TO JAIL.
ONCE HE'S OUT THE QUESTION
WHETHER HE'S GOT THAT AUTHORITY
TO ACTUALLY DO THAT. CORRECT .
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
TO SOME EXTENT BUT NOT REALLY
HERE'S WHERE I THINK THE
OFFICER IN MY HUMBLE OPINION IF
THEY STARTED INVESTIGATION
MAITLAND AND THEY NEED TO GO
OVER TO WINTER PARK TO GO LOOK
AT A SITE OR ANYTHING THAT DOES
NOT INVOLVE EVIDENCE GATHERING
THEY ARE USING CURRENT SENSORS
TO DO THAT THEIR SENSE OF
OBSERVATION ENVISION WHATEVER.
>> JusticeJohn Couriel: THAT IS
EVIDENCE GATHERING. IT IS STILL
GATHERING EVIDENCE IF I USE MY
EYES OR HAVE A SUBPOENA.
>>Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
IT COULD BE .
>> Justice John Couriel: IT
CANNOT NOT BE.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
YOU ARE ALLOWED AS A PRIVATE
CITIZEN TO GO INTO OTHER .
>> Justice John Couriel: THAT'S
A DIFFERENT QUESTION WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING A MOMENT AGO IF THEY
GO TOGETHER EVIDENCED BY THEIR
OWN OBSERVATION THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER A LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER CEASES TO BE A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHEN HE OR
SHE GATHERS EVIDENCE OUTSIDE
THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS NO
WAY FOR YOU TO CREDIBLY MAKE
THAT ASSERTION AND ALSO HAVE A
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THEY
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SERVICE A
SUBPOENA OUTSIDE THE
JURISDICTION FOR WITNESS TO GO
TO THE BAR WHERE MR REPPLE HAD
BEEN OR LET'S SAY IN THIS CASE
THE RESTAURANT DOES NOT IN THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF
MAITLAND AND HE GOES TO SERVICE
A SUBPOENA THERE THE NEXT DAY
TO GET THE BARLEY SEAT
SOMETHING LIKE THAT YOU SAY
THAT IS TRAVELING ON THE
STATUTORY LIMITATIONS HE IS NOT
BEING A PRIVATE CITIZEN CANNOT
SERVE A SUBPOENA AND DEMAND OR
SEARCH WARRANT, THE RULE YOU
ARE PREPENDING MEANS A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CANNOT
INVESTIGATE OUTSIDE OF THEIR
MUNICIPAL LIMIT.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
FRANKLY YOUR HONOR IF THAT WAS
MY THAT WOULD BE MY POSITION
BUT I'M TRYING TO READ ALL OF
THIS IN AMONGST A LOT OF
DECISIONS FROM A LOT OF
DIFFERENT COURTS GOING A LOT OF
DIFFERENT WAYS.
THE ONLY WAY I HAVEN'T BEEN
ABLE TO MAKE SOME SEMBLANCE OF
LEGAL REASON OUT OF IT IS AS
LONG AS IT DOES NOT EVOLVE
INVOLVE USE OF COLOR OF OFFICE
WHERE YOU ARE ACTING AS A
POLICE OFFICER TOGETHER THAT
EVIDENCE LIKE IN THIS CASE
IMPLIED CONSENT MORNING SAYING
IF YOU DON'T SUBMIT TO
BREATH-TEST YOU WILL LOSE YOUR
LICENSE OR YOU WILL BE CHARGED
WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
IS CLEAR UNDER THE STATUTE THE
WARNING HAS TO BE GIVEN BY THE
OFFICER REQUESTED TO COME FROM
AN OFFICER. IS IT REALLY CLEAR
FROM THE STATUTE THE WARNING .
IT SAYS THE PERSON SHALL BE
TOLD IT IS NOT NECESSARILY SAFE
YOU MIGHT EXPECT ORDINARILY
WILL BE THE OFFICER DOESN'T
ACTUALLY SAY THAT?
>>Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY IT IT
SAYS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
IT CAN BE ANOTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITH
JURISDICTION THERE WHO COULD
MAKE THE REQUEST .
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
THE REQUEST IS BY THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THE WARNING
DOES NOT HAVE TO BE OR THE
READING THE NOTICE LIMIT ASK
BRITAIN COULD LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER BE ISSUED THE CONSENT
NOTICE AND MAKE A CALL TO THE
FACILITY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY
AND SAY CALL THE TECHNICIAN AND
SAY I'M REQUESTING TO DO THIS
TEST AND BRINGING THE GUY OVER?
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
MAYBE.
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
OKAY THIS IS RIDICULOUS.
REALLY, THIS MAKES NO SENSE
UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES WE
HAVE TO DO THINGS THAT MAKE NO
SENSE. BUT THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE
WE WOULD HAVE TO BE GOING OUT
OF OUR WAY IN THIS CASE.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
I DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE GOING
OUT OF HER WAY THE REASON WHY I
DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE GOING OUT
OF HER WAY IS BECAUSE I GO BACK
A LITTLE BIT LONGER THERE WAS A
TIME WHENEVER MUNICIPALITY I
KNOW OF IN THE ORLANDO AREA HAD
THEIR OWN BREATH TESTING
MACHINE IN THEIR CITY SOMEHOW
THIS EVOLVED TO WHERE IT WAS
OUTSIDE THE CITY.
THERE IS NO REASON BY A POLICE
OFFICER IF WE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT MUNICIPALITY AND THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR LAWS IN
THEIR MUNICIPALITY, THERE IS NO
REASON JUST LIKE TO GO OUT AND
BUY POLICE CARS TO GO OUT ON MY
RADIOS, THEY CAN GO OUT AND BUY
A BREATH TESTING MACHINE. THAT
BREATH TESTING MACHINE WOULD BE
WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THAT
JURISDICTION THAT POLICE
OFFICER COULD ENFORCE THE LAWS
OF IT THAT MUNICIPALITY
ARRESTED SOMEBODYFOR DUI AND
TAKE THEM DOWN TO THEIR STATION
AND SUBMIT THEM .
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
REALLY YOU CAN IMAGINE THE
WHOLE THING WITH THE
EXTRATERRITORIAL EXERCISE OF
POWER YOU CAN IMAGINE PART OF
THAT IS BASED ON NOT WANTING TO
INTERFERE WITH THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OF THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE FOR THE
OTHER JURISDICTION PART OF IT
CAN BE PROTECTING THE CITIZENS
AND THE PROPERTY IN THE OTHER
JURISDICTIONS. IN THIS CASE
EITHER ONE OF THOSE INTERESTS
IS REALLY AT STAKE. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE
A COMPLETELY HATE IT WHEN EVERY
TIME SOMEBODY USES THE WORD
FORMALISM IT IS IN A PEJORATIVE
WAY IT SEEMS LIKE SORT OF AN
EMPTY THING IF THERE IS NOTHING
INHERENT ABOUT ANYTHING THAT
THIS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
DOING IT IS NOT INHERENT IT HAS
TO HAPPEN IN THE OTHER
JURISDICTION FOR IT TO BE
EFFECTIVE YOU CAN MAKE YOUR
CALL AND DO IT THE WORDING AND
MAKE THE CALL AND THE THING
YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE CRIME
COMMITTED IN YOUR JURISDICTION.
THE PERSON WAS THERE. WHAT IS
THE POINT?
I DON'T GET IT.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
THE POINT IS ONCE YOU BRING THE
BREATH-TEST INTO IT IT'S A
WHOLE SEPARATE OFFENSE.
IN A LOT OF RESPECTS. BECAUSE
FIRST OFF THEY ARE REQUESTING A
BREATH-TEST WHICH FOR THE
CHARGE OF UNLAWFUL BREATH
ALCOHOL LEVEL. WHICH CANNOT BE
MADE IN THE CITY OF MAITLAND
UNLESS THERE IS A BREATH
TESTING MACHINE INTHE CITY OF
MAITLAND.
>> Justice Charles Canady: ALL
OF THAT IS INCIDENT TO THE
ARREST.
IT HAS TO BE.
INCIDENT TO THE ARREST.
IT FLOWS FROM THE ARREST.
RIGHT
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
NOT AS OF OCTOBER 1 I DON'T
BELIEVE IT DOES BUT A LITTLE
BIT BEFORE THAT WHEN REFUSALS
BECAME A CRIME .
>> Justice Charles Canady: YOU
CAN TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT LAW.
THAT IS NOT REALLY WHAT WE ARE
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
BACK THEN A SECOND REFUSAL WAS
A CRIME .
>> Justice John Couriel: THAT
IS WHAT I WAS EXPLORE WITH THE
STATE IF WE MAKE EVERY ON A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND SAID
LET'S SAY YOUR CLIENT IS THAT
CERTAIN WITNESS IT SOUNDS LIKE
THE STATE IS SAYING THAT THIS
NARROWEST RULE THAT THEY WOULD
ESPOUSE WOULD LEAVE YOU IN THE
RIGHT OR PERHAPS BE THE
QUESTION (I DON'T SEE A WAY TO
DECIDE THIS CASE THAT AN
HOURLY. I THINK THAT WHAT THE
STATE IS REALLY SAYING IS IT
THAT IF ANOTHER CRIME COMES TO
LIGHT WHILE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER IS INVESTIGATING THE
CONDUCT THAT GENERATED PROBABLE
CAUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE THEN
IT WOULD BE FORMALISTIC AND
ALSO CONTRARY TO THE
CONSTITUTION BOTH OUR STATE
CONSTITUTION AND SUBTLE
PRINCIPLES OF THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION SEARCH AND SEIZURE
LAW. YOU HAVE A LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER EITHER TURN A BLIND EYE
TO THE EVIDENCE OR SOMEHOW HAVE
TO SAY AND WITHOUT MY
JURISDICTION.
I'M GOING TO NOT DETECT AND
OPPOSE EVOLUTION OF THE STATE
LAW WAS SWORN TO UPHOLD JUST
BECAUSE NOW I'M OUTSIDE OF THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITATION OF THE
CITY OF MAITLAND REPORTING ONCE
THEY GO OUT THE TERRITORIAL
LIMITSOF THE CITY OF MIDLAND
THEY ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS JUST
LIKE ANY OTHER PRIVATE CITIZEN.
>> Justice Charles Canady: I'M
GLAD YOU ARE MAKING.
>> Justice John Couriel: GLAD
YOU MAKE THE ARGUMENT CLEARLY I
THINK ONCE MAITLAND OFFICER
LEAVES THE SEED MIDLAND THEY
ARE PRIVATE CITIZEN IS NOT AN
ARGUMENT THAT PREVAILS UNDER
OUR CASE LAW BUT I ADMIRE YOUR
YOUR CLARITY.
>> .
>> Justice: DO YOU THINK THERE
IS SOME OF THE STATION IN THE
CASE LAW ABOUT WHETHER SOMEONE
IS IN CUSTODY TO ME THAT IS
VERY DIFFERENT I THINK I AGREE
WITH YOU THAT IF A MAITLAND
POLICE OFFICER GOES AND
ATTEMPTS TO ARREST SOMEONE THEY
SEE COMMITTING A CRIME IN
DOWNTOWN ORLANDO.
WE HAVE A VERY COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT QUESTION. BECAUSE I
THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
PRETTY CLEARLY IS EXERCISING
SOME SORT OF EXTRATERRITORIAL
POWER.
THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO A
PRIVATE CITIZEN ANYWAY AND
PROBABLY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
WE WOULD FIND WOULD BE
AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE. IN THIS
CASE YOU HAVEN'T SOMEONE IN
FRESH PURSUIT THAT INCLUDES
ARRESTING SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF A
VERY SPECIFIC IT'S NOT ABOUT
SOMEBODY ALREADY IN CUSTODY.
MOST OF THE LAWS HAVE TO DO
ALONG WITH WHEN YOU ARE
ASSERTING THAT LEVEL OF
AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF YOUR
JURISDICTION, HEREWE HAVE
SOMEBODY WHO HAS ALREADY BEEN
ARRESTED THEY ARE BEING
TRANSPORTED . I DON'T THINK YOU
ARE ARGUING THAT THEY CANNOT BE
TRANSPORTED AND BOOKED AT 33RD
CORRECT .
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
THEY CANNOT BE BOOKED AT 33RD.
>> Justice Jamie Grosshans: THE
OFFICER HAS TO TRANSPORT IT
WILL NOT LET THEM WALK THERE
THEY ARE GETTING THERE.
AND I THINK THAT OF THE POINT
IS THAT THEY ARE ALREADY IN
CUSTODY THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN
ARRESTED IT WAS A LAWFUL
ARREST. I DON'T KNOW WE REALLY
HAVE ANYTHING THAT HAS EVER
CLEARLY DEFINED THAT PARTICULAR
SITUATION.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
I THINK WE CAN ALSO LOSE SIGHT
OF THE FACT THAT UNDER FLORIDA
STATUTE 322.2615 WHICH IS THE
ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION LAW
WHICH IS ANOTHER PART OF ALL OF
THIS.
UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE
SUSPENSION LAW THE POLICE
OFFICER IS ACTING ABAFT THE
STATE OF FLORIDA.
TO SPEND A DRIVERS LICENSE FOR
SOMEBODY WHO REFUSES OR
REGISTERS AN UNLAWFUL BREATH
ALCOHOL LEVEL WHAT IS REALLY
THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL THEY
HAVE JURISDICTION ALL OVER THE
STATE BECAUSE THEY ARE STATE
OFFICERS. THE LEGISLATURE HAS
GIVEN UNIVERSITY PRINCETON
CENTRAL FLORIDA THE AUTHORITY
TO GO AHEAD AND ENFORCE THE LAW
BUT IS ALL LEGISLATIVEAUTHORITY
THAT IS GIVING THESE POLICE
AGENCIES THEIR AUTHORITY TO DO
WHAT THEY DO AROUND THE STATE .
>> Justice Meredith Sasso: WHAT
IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW
THE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS ARE
WORKING IN THIS SCENARIO AND
PRACTICE.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
IN PRACTICE THEY CAN WORK THE
PROBLEM IS THAT I BELIEVE THIS
IS JUST ME FOR WHATEVER IT'S
WORTH.
I BELIEVE THEY WERE REALLY
INTENDED FOR SPECIAL EVENTS THE
PRECEDENT IS COMING TO TOWN
THERE IS A HURRICANE. THERE IS
SOME KIND OF BIG EMERGENCY THEN
ALL THE PERMITS WANT TO GET
TOGETHER AND FORM A MUTUAL AID
AGREEMENT. SO THAT THEY CANNOT
ASSIST EACH OTHER IN THAT KIND
OF SITUATION.
BUT I THINK FOR ROUTINE LAW
ENFORCEMENT MATTERS, I DON'T
SEE IT LEGALLY AS BEING
SOMETHINGTHAT SHOULD BE DONE.
THIS IS A ROUTINE EVEN IF YOU
LOOK AT SOME OF THE .
>> Justice Charles Canady: HELP
ME UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU THINK
SHOULD BE DONE?
DO WE GO BACK TO YOUR VIEW THAT
EVERY LITTLE MUNICIPALITY
SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN TESTING
THEY DO THE TESTING THERE THEY
DON'T DO IT IN THE CENTRAL
TESTING FACILITY.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
ITHROW THAT OUT AS ONE
ALTERNATIVE .
THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR YOU AND
YOUR CLIENTS I'M SURE.
[LAUGHTER] DO YOU AGREE?
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
IF THEY DID IT IN THEIR OWN
JURISDICTION.
>> Justice Charles Canady: IT
IS MORE LIKELY TO HAVE SOME
TECHNICAL PROBLEMS IS THAT
CORRECT.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
I WILL NOT SAY THAT.
[LAUGHTER] THAT IT CAN HAPPEN I
WOULD LIKE TO THANK WHOEVER IS
IN CHARGE OF THOSE DEVICES
WHICH I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE
THERE HAS BEEN MANY VERY
CAPABLE INDIVIDUALS AND LITTLE
CITIES
>> Justice Charles Canady: IN
MANY LITTLE CITIES IT WAS DONE
PERFECTLY BUT THE MORE PEOPLE
THAT ARE DOING IT LESS
FREQUENTLY DID THEY DO IT MORE
LIKELY THERE IS GOING TO BE
SOMETHING
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
CORRECT YOU DON'T AVOID IT THE
PROBLEM THE WEIGHT THEY ARE
DOING IT NOW BECAUSE YOU HAVE
PROBABLY 20 OR 30 .
[UNCLEAR AUDIO]
>> Justice Charles Canady: I
WAS CAUSED A DIGRESSION.
[LAUGHTER] BASICALLY YOU JUST
THINK THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING
DONE DIFFERENTLY MUTUAL AID
PACKED DON'T THINK THAT IS A
SOLUTION FOR THE REASON IT DOES
NOT SEEM TO FIT WHAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT.
IF IT IS NOT HAVING TO TESTING
EVERYWHERE WHAT IS IT?
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
HERE IS WHAT I THINK. THIS IS
JUST WHAT I THINK WE HAVE LAWS
OF JURISDICTION FOR A REASON.
THEY ARE THERE FOR A REASON.
UNLESS THE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION IS
ONEOF THE BASIC PREMISES OF
ANYTHING THAT WE DO LEGALLY .
>> Justice John Couriel: THE
COURTS SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION STEMS UNDER US
CONSTITUTION FROM OUR
CONSTITUTION THAT IS DIFFERENT
FROM THE JURISDICTION OF A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO ENFORCE
THE LAW. ONE IS A LET'S BE
CAREFUL ABOUT OUR ANALOGIES.
WHEN WE SPEAK ABOUT EXPORTS
JURISDICTION WE TALK ABOUT WHEN
POWER WE ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT
THE EXECUTIVE POWER.
WHICH IS A DIFFERENT SAME WORD
LET'S TALK ABOUT AUTHORITY OR
JURISDICTION CAREFULLY.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO THE
STATUTE THAT PROVIDED
JURISDICTION. THE LEGISLATURE
CAN FIX THIS.
THEY FIXED A LOT OF OTHER
THINGS OVER THE YEARS.
IN THIS FIELD. IT CAN BE FIXED
BUT THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE
WRITTEN THE IMPLIED CONSENT
STATUTE IS THAT A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS TO
REQUEST THE BREATH-TEST. THE
JURISDICTIONAL LAW ON MISCIBLE
POLICE OFFICERS THERE IS
NUMEROUS PRIVATE CITED IN THE
BRIEF PROBABLY MORE EVEN OUT
THERE THAT ONCE A MUNICIPAL
POLICE OFFICER LEAVES THEIR
JURISDICTION THEY ARE PRIVATE
CITIZEN.
IF WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THE
TEXT OF THAT STATUTE WHAT IT
SAYS WHAT IT MEANS I WILL CALL
THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO THE
GRIFFIS CASE WHICH IS ALSO FROM
THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL CASE THAT PARTICULAR
CASE DEALT WITH SEARCH WARRANTS
A SEARCH WARRANT WHETHER A E OF
SEARCH WARRANT CAN BE ISSUED
AND WHO IT CAN BE ISSUED TO.
THE STATUTE REQUIRED IT BE
ISSUED TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER ACTUALLY HE WAS A
POLICE OFFICER. BUT THE FIFTH
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN OUR
OPINION MADE A POINT OF SAYING
IT HAD TO BE A POLICE OFFICER
WITH THE POWER TO ACT.
THEY MADE A SPECIFIC BINDING
POWER TO ACT.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IF THE
LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO USE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN FLORIDA
STATUTE 316.1932, IT HAS TO BE
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN MY
OPINION WITH POWER TO ACT.
IF WE ARE GOING TO BE
CONSISTENT.
>> Justice Meredith Sasso: CAN
I CLARIFY ONE THING ON THE
SUPPRESSION ISSUE IN THE
SUPPRESSION ISSUE CAN YOU
CLARIFY YOUR ARGUMENT IS IT YOU
THINK IT'S A LEGISLATIVE
STATUTORY SUPPRESSION REMEDY OR
DO THINK IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL
IN NATURE.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
I BELIEVE IT CAN BE DELVED INTO
CONSTITUTIONALLY IF YOU LOOK AT
CASES WHERE STATUTES DON'T
EXPRESSLY SAY EXPRESSION OR
SUPPRESSION IS REMEDY THE CASES
YOU GO BACK TO.
[LISTING NAMES] AND YOU GO BACK
TO ENGLAND DAVID BROUGHT UP IN
ONE OF THE PINS THAT THE
CONSTABLES USED OUT THE KINKS
CODE THEY WERE DOING ACTS
WITHOUT THE KINGS CODE THEY
WERE NOT LAWFUL. YOU CAN MAKE
THAT ANALOGY GO BACK AND FIND A
CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY OF
EXCLUSIONARY RULE. BUT I THINK
WHEN IT COMES TO THE IMPLIED
CONSENT LAW I BELIEVE BY THIS
COURT IT IS HELD IN THOSE THREE
CASES ROBERTSON DONALDSON AND
VENDORS TO BE STATUTORY.
IT WAS A STATUTORY EXCLUSION IF
YOU DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE OR
THE RULES FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE
BREATH-TEST, THEN THERE IS IN
ROBERTSON A STATUTORY
EXCLUSIONARY RULE. I BELIEVE
IT'S A STATUTORY EXCLUSION BUT
I BELIEVE THAT THE ARGUMENT
COULD BE MADE IT IS
CONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL.
>> Justice Meredith Sasso: I
GUESS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHICH ONE YOU ARE HANGING YOUR
HEAD ON.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
REALLY I WOULD LIKE TO SAY AND
HANGING IT ON ONE OR THE OTHER
BUT I'M NOT REALLY BECAUSE I
CAN SEE THE ARGUMENTS FOR BOTH
OF THEM.
I DON'T MAKE THE DECISIONS I
JUST KIND OF FOLLOWED THEM FROM
DIFFERENT COURTS.
AND TRY AND PUT THEM TOGETHER
AND COME TO SOME SENSIBLE
CONCLUSION LEGALLY TO MAKE
SENSE LEGALLY.
I DO BELIEVE THOUGH WHEN THEY
SAY THAT THE THREE CASES OF
THIS FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IN
THE PAST DONALDSON BENDER AND
ROBERTSON THEY WERE ALL VERY
BASIC IN YOU HAVE TO COMPLY
WITH THE STATUTE AND THERE IS A
STATUTE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE
AND 316.1932 HAS TO BE A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO REQUEST
THE BREATH-TEST. I THINK THE
BETTER ARGUMENT PROBABLY IN
THIS CASE IS STATUTORY
SUPPRESSION.
BY THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IT IS
STATUTORY BUT I THINK THE
ARGUMENT CAN ALSO BE MADE THAT
IS BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION IF
YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT IS
THE POWERS OF POLICE OFFICERS
AND EVIDENCE GATHERING BACK
THEN I GUESS IT WAS BREAKING
DOWN DOORS BECAUSE IT DIDN'T
HAVE BREATH-TEST MACHINES BUT
HERE WE ARE BREATH-TEST WHERE
PEOPLE ARE BEING SEARCHED
PERSONALLY.
MY FEELING IS THAT I CANNOT
MAKE THE DECISION BUT I THINK
THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT CAN BE
MADE FOR BOTH OF THOSE I THINK
THE STATUTORY ONE IS PROBABLY
THE BETTER ARGUMENT.
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
IN ORDER FOR YOU TO WIN ON THE
MERITS WITH TWO THERE IS OTHER
PARTS TO IT BUT THE
FOUNDATIONAL PREMISE IS IT THAT
THE ACT OF REQUESTING THE
TECHNICIAN OR WHATEVER TO
PERFORM THE TEST THAT THAT IS
AN EXTRATERRITORIAL EXERCISE OF
MUNICIPAL POWER.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
YES IT IS BEING DONE NOT ONLY
FOR THE OFFICER FOR HIS DUI
CASE BUT IT IS ALSO BEING DONE
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA FORADMINISTRATIVE
PURPOSES AS FAR AS SUSPENSION
OF DRIVER'S LICENSES.
THEY ARE ACTING AS A STATE
OFFICER .
Muniz: OTHER THAN SYRUP THE
ANALOGY TO THE SORT OF MAN KIND
OF OBSERVATIONAL WALKING AROUND
TYPE SEARCHES THERE IS NO I'M
AWARE OF ANYBODY SELLING ANY
AUTHORITY FOR UNDERSTANDING
THIS PHRASE IN THE CONSTITUTION
IN THIS CONTEXT. TO ADJUST THAT
RESULT BY ANALOGY.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE
COLOR OF OFFICE.
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
THE REASON WHY YOU ARE ARGUING
THE AUTHORITY THAT YOU HAVE TO
SAY THAT THIS ONE YOU ARE
SAYING IS A MATTER OF LANGUAGE
THEY ARE EXERCISING POWER AS
FAR AS NOW JAZZING IT WITH THE
THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN LEGALLY
RECOGNIZED TO BE THE EDITORIAL
EXERCISE OF POWER DO WE KNOW
YOU NEEDSTATUTE IF A POLICEMAN
FROM MIDLAND WAS TO GO WALK
AROUND IN ANOTHER CITY AND
GATHER EVIDENCE THAT IS
RELEVANT TO A CASE YOU DON'T
NEED ANY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
TO DO THAT RIGHT .
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
IF YOU FOLLOW THE PREMISE THAT
IS ACTUALLY EVIDENCE GATHERING
BY WALKING AROUND JUST USING
YOUR EYES THEN YES YOU PROBABLY
DO.
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
OKAY THAT'S OBVIOUSLY THAT GOES
AGAINST THE CASE LAW SUPPORTING
WHAT I ACKNOWLEDGES THIS TO HIS
THOSE CASES WHERE THE WINTER
HOTEL ROOMS AND CERTAIN HOTEL
ROOM THEY WENT TO PEOPLE'S
HOUSES AND DID SEARCHES THAT IS
WHERE THEY ARE USING THE COLOR
OF THEIR OFFICE.
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
UNDERSTANDS THAT IS BASICALLY
IT.
>> Justice Charles Canady: CAN
I ASK A BRIEF FOLLOW-UP ABOUT
THE REQUEST FOR THE TEST DO YOU
UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE A REQUEST
THAT IS MADE BY THE OFFICER TO
THE TECHNICIANS TO ADMINISTER
THE TEST WHICH I THINK THE
CHIEF SUGGESTED, OR A REQUEST
BY THE OFFICER TO THE PERSON IN
CUSTODY THE ARRESTEE TO SUBMIT
IT IS A REQUEST BY THE OFFICER
WHO ARRESTED THEM TO SUBMIT TO
THE TEST.
>> Justice Charles Canady: IT
IS NOT A REQUEST TO THE
TECHNICIAN THAT IS YOUR VIEW.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE
BECAUSE THE TECHNICIAN IS A
CIVILIAN DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY
TO GO AHEAD UNDER THAT STATUTE.
>>Justice Charles Canady: I
UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST HAS TO
EMANATE FROM THE POLICE OFFICER
NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT QUESTION
THAT I HAVE IS WHO THE REQUEST
IS DIRECTED TO IS IT DIRECTED
TO THE TECHNICIAN TO ADMINISTER
THE TEST OR TO THE ARRESTEE TO
SUBMIT TO WHAT YOU SAY TO THE
ARRESTEE TO SUBMIT TO ITS
CORRECT .
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
JUST KIND OF GET MORE OF A
UNDERSTANDING WHEN THEY GO DOWN
THERE AT THE TECHNICIAN IS
GOING TO DO THE TEST THE POLICE
OFFICER IS DR. READ THE IMPLIED
CONSENT WARNING AND REQUESTED
TEST.
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
THE STATUTE IS ALL OVER THE
TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT PEOPLE
REQUESTING DIFFERENT THINGS IS
NOT OBVIOUS THAT THE RECIPIENT
OF THE REQUEST IS THE DEFENDANT
WORTH THE ARRESTEE BECAUSE THE
WHOLE PREMISE OF THIS IS THEY
ALREADY CONSENTED THEY ARE JUST
KIND OF BEING REMINDED OF THE
CONSENT THEY ALREADY GIVEN
THEIR BEING KIND OF WARNED IF
THEY WITHDRAW THEIR CONSENT
THERE IS THOUGHT TO BE THESE
POTENTIAL CRIMINAL
CONSEQUENCES.
STRANGE CONSTRUCT IT IS NOT
EVEN REALLY ANALOGOUS TO
KNOCKING ON HIS DOOR AND SAYING
CAN I COME IN BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY
I HAVE NOT ALREADY CONSENTED TO
SOMEBODY COMMANDS IN THAT
SITUATION. IT'S A VERY I
UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE ARGUING
WHAT YOU ARE. I'M NOT
CRITICIZING YOU.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY KIND OF THIS
IS ITS OWN UNIQUE THING IT DOES
NOT REALLY FIT IT IS OUTFITTED
THE OTHER PRACTICES THAT ARE
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
IT COULD BE, A SLIPPERY SLOPE
THOUGH DEPENDING ON HOW THIS
GOES DOESTHAT GIVE POLICE
OFFICERS THE POLICE OFFICERS
FROM MIDLAND COME TO
TALLAHASSEE AND INTERROGATE
PEOPLE APPEAR BY USE OF THE
COLOR OF THEIR OFFICE. CAN THEY
COME UP HERE !
WHO HAVE NOT ALREADY BEEN
ARRESTED?
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
MAYBE THEY WERE ARRESTED AND
OUT ON BOND AND COME UP HERE TO
GATHER MORE EVIDENCE . WHERE IT
CAN GO IS A LOT THAT IS WHY I
WOULD SUBMIT IT'S A SLIPPERY
SLOPE SCHOOL AND YOU COULD HAVE
30 SECONDS TO FINISH UP.
>> Stuart Ira Hyman,Petitioner:
I BELIEVE IF WE JUST GO BY THE
CASE LAW DEVELOPED ADDITIONALLY
AS I UNDERSTAND IT MUNICIPAL
POLICE OFFICER OUTSIDE OF THEIR
JURISDICTION IS A PRIVATE
CITIZEN AND THEY CANNOT USE THE
COLOR OF THEIR OFFICE TO FERRET
OUT EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT
OTHERWISE OBSERVABLE. I BELIEVE
IT COMES DOWN TO THAT AND A
STATUTE TO SUPPORT THAT FLORIDA
STATUTE 316.1932 HAS TO BE A
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT IS
REQUESTING A BREATH-TEST THAT
IS WHAT I BELIEVE IT BOILS DOWN
TO IN THE END.
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> Attorney: JUST BRIEFLY IF I
UNDERSTAND MY FRIEND CORRECTLY
HE IS PRINCIPALLY ARGUING THIS
IS A VIOLATION OF THE IMPLIED
CONSENT STATUTE.
I THINK THAT I DON'T THINK YOU
CAN GET THAT FROM THE IMPLIED
CONSENT STATUTE THE IMPLIED
CONSENT STATUTE AUTHORIZES IT
REQUIRES THE ARRESTING OFFICER
TO REQUEST A TEST I WILL TAKE
MY FRIENDS FEEL THE LEGISLATURE
IS IMPLICITLY REQUIRING EVERY
MUNICIPALITY IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA TO PURCHASE THEIR OWN
BREATH-TEST AND OPERATES ON
BREATH-TEST FACILITY HATE TO
INVOKE THE ABSURDITY TENANT I
BELIEVE WE ARE APPROACHING THE
TERRITORY THERE ARE SOME
MUNICIPALITIES IN FLORIDA THAT
HAVE AGENCIES OF HANDFUL OF
POLICE OFFICERS I DON'T THINK
THE LEGISLATURE WAS REQUIRING
THAT REGARDLESS THIS IS NOT
ANYTHING THAT GOES TO THE
ACCURACY OR THE VALIDITY OF THE
TEST RESULTS THEMSELVES THERE
IS NOTHING IN THE IMPLIED
CONSENT STATUTE THAT WOULD
REQUIRE SUPPRESSION IN THAT
CONTEXT THANK YOU.
>> Chief Justice Carlos Muniz:
THANK YOU.