Florida’s Implied Consent Law
In Florida, the implied consent law can be found in Florida Statute Section 316.1932. The implied consent law in Florida gives greater protection to those in DUI cases who must submit to chemical testing than is required under the federal or state constitution.
Effective October 1, 2021, the Florida Legislature amended the implied consent warning to add a provision informing the person they are subject to increased penalties if they had previously been fined under section 327.35215(1) Florida Statutes. That section deals with the penalties for failing to submit to a test after being suspected of boating under the influence (BUI).
Florida’s implied consent law helps accomplish the following goals:
- limits the power of law enforcement officers to require a person lawfully arrested for DUI to give samples of breath, urine, or blood without the person’s consent;
- sets out the methods by which samples may be taken and tested.
Any person who accepts the privilege to drive and is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is “deemed to have given consent” to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test.
For the chemical test results to be admissible at trial, the defendant does not need to read or understand the “implied consent” law.
In some limited circumstances, the courts have found that the failure of law enforcement to read the implied consent law does not provide a basis for the suppression of test results because by accepting the privilege to drive in Florida, the defendant already consented to submit an approved chemical test. Sambrine v. State, 386 So.2d 546 (Fla.1980).
Special Requirements for Breath or Urine Testing
Section 316.1932(1)(a)-(b) allows for breath and urine testing but does so only incidental to a lawful arrest “for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence.” Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Whitley, 846 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 5thDCA 2003).
Under Section 316.1932(1)(a), administering one type of test does not preclude administering another type of test. State v. Korth, 875 So.2d 790 (Fla. 3rdDCA 2004). Instead, Section 316.1932(1)(a)1.b., provides:
“Any person…in this state is, by so operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to a urine test for the purpose of detecting the presence of chemical substances as set forth in §877.111 or controlled substances if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of chemical substances or controlled substances.”
When does a defendant impliedly consent to a test of his or her urine under Section 316.1932? The defendant impliedly consents to a test of urine under Section 316.1932 only in cases in which a law enforcement officer has a reasonable basis to believe the person was driving under the influence of a controlled substance.
This article was last updated on Wednesday, June 7, 2023.
