STATE V. KORTH ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. CASE NOS. L.T. NOS. CHRISTOPHER KORTH, MICHEL FERNANDEZ, ROBERNIS PEREZ, ARMANDO DEVALLE, OSVALDO GONZALEZ, GUILLERMO VELARDE, ALFONSO LAZARO, JONATHAN GUERRERO, JACOB TENCHER, MICHELLE CORDERO, JOSE CALLAVA, JOSE AGUILERA, RAUL GRANADA, SANDRA GUARDIOLA, LUIS MURRAY, JOAN ESTADELLA, 3D03-2247 3D03-2246 3D03-2245 3D03-2244 3D03-2243 3D03-2088 3D03-2086 3D03-1965 3D03-1956 3D03-1953 3D03-1952 3D03-1951 3D03-1950 3D03-1946 3D03-2085 3D03-1950 8740BUS 4915BUR 4183BDF 3439BWZ 5903BVK 9930BVA 1329BVC 8744BQS 9969BVA 6727BGP 8112BUU 9744BOG 3619BUV 8801BOY 4218BJB 3619BUV Appellees. Opinion filed June 23, 2004. Appeals from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Edward Newman and Israel Reyes, Orlando A. Prescott, Rosa C. Figarola, and Luise Krieger-Martin, Judges. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Meredith L. Balo, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Shannon P. McKenna, Assistant Public Defender, for appellees Christopher Korth, Michel Fernandez, Robernis Perez, Armando Delvalle, Osvaldo Gonzalez, Guillermo Velarde, Alfonso Lazaro, Jonathan Guerrero, Jacob Tencher, and Sandra Guardiola; Helen Raisman for appellee Michelle Cordero; Maritza Alvarez for appellee Jose Callava; Miguel Del Aguila for appellee Jose Aguilera; Humberto Dominguez for appellee Raul Granada; Paul Molle for appellee, Luis Murray; and Lewis Fishman for appellee Joan Estadella. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, and WELLS, JJ. WELLS, Judge. We accepted jurisdiction in these now consolidated appeals to address the following question certified as being of great public importance: IS THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT REQUIRED TO ADOPT RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT GOVERNING THE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION, AND ANALYSIS OF URINE SAMPLES OBTAINED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 316.1932(1)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES?1 1 This question was also posed as follows by two different County Court judges: DOES AN ARRESTEE CONSENT, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE IMPLIED CONSENT LAW, ยง 316.1932(1)(a)1, FLA. STAT., TO HIS/HER SEIZURE OF URINE WHEN THERE IS NO APPROVED TEST FOR THE DETECTION THEREIN OF CHEMICAL OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, OR THEIR METABOLITES? Can the State introduce urine test results of a defendant s urine sample obtained by law enforcement pursuant to Florida Statute, section 316.1932(1)(a), Florida s implied consent law, where the officer who read the implied consent warnings to the defendant never expressly stated that the test being offered was an approved test, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has not promulgated rules governing urine collection and testing? This question has recently been answered by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Bodden, 2004 WL 792826, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S153 (Fla. April 15, 2004), which holds that section 316.1932(1)(a)(1) of the Florida Statutes does not require that urine testing procedures be promulgated and approved by rule in accordance with Florida s Administrative Procedure Act.2 We therefore reverse the orders entered in each of these consolidated appeals which excluded the results of urine tests procured under the aegis of section 316.1932, the implied consent law relating to the operation of motor vehicles. Reversed and remanded. 2 Since the implied consent law for operators of motor vehicles (section 316.1932(1)(a)) does not require that urine testing methods be approved, the questions certified in footnote 1 above must be answered in the affirmative. The orders precluding introduction of such test results in each of the cases in which these questions were posed, must, therefore, be reversed as well.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
