On February 28, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court made headlines with a significant ruling regarding DUI arrests and breath tests. The Court overturned a previous decision that had suppressed breath test results in a DUI case involving Bryan Repple, who was arrested by a police officer in Maitland for driving under the influence of alcohol. This ruling has sparked discussions about the boundaries of law enforcement’s jurisdiction and the implications of Florida’s Implied Consent Law.
In the case, Repple was transported to a breath test facility located outside of Maitland in Orange County, where he registered an illegal blood alcohol level. Initially, the 6th District Court of Appeal supported Repple’s argument that the breath test results should be excluded because the officer acted outside his jurisdiction. However, Justice Charles Canady’s opinion in the Supreme Court highlighted that Florida’s Implied Consent Law allows officers to request breath tests even outside their immediate jurisdiction when a DUI arrest is made.
Understanding the Implied Consent Law
Florida law mandates that drivers lawfully arrested for DUI must consent to a chemical test—be it blood, breath, or urine. According to the Implied Consent Law, anyone with a Florida driver’s license or operating a vehicle in the state has automatically agreed to these tests if they are lawfully arrested for DUI (Fla. Stat. § 316.1932 (2025)). This means that when an officer requests a breathalyzer test, drivers are legally required to comply, and refusal can lead to serious repercussions.
The consequences of refusing a chemical test can be quite harsh. For a first refusal, there is a mandatory one-year suspension of the driver’s license, while subsequent refusals can result in an 18-month suspension. Notably, refusing a breath or urine test is categorized as a misdemeanor, whereas refusing a blood test is considered a civil offense. These penalties underscore the importance of understanding one’s rights and obligations under Florida law.
Legal Implications and Defense Strategies
Repple’s case serves as a reminder of the legal complexities surrounding DUI arrests in Florida. The Supreme Court’s ruling indicates that officers are empowered to act under the Implied Consent Law, which is aimed at ensuring that law enforcement can effectively perform their duties regarding impaired driving. However, the law also stipulates that the arrest must be lawful, requiring probable cause (Fla. Stat. § 322.2615 (2025)). If a driver can demonstrate a lack of probable cause for the arrest, they may have grounds to contest the charges against them.
Additionally, individuals who refuse a chemical test may face enhanced penalties if they are later convicted of DUI, as their refusal can be used against them in court. It is advisable for anyone facing DUI charges to consult with a qualified attorney to explore potential defenses, such as improper procedure during the arrest or coercion during the refusal of the test.
Conclusion
The Florida Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the use of DUI breath tests outside of jurisdiction emphasizes the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding DUI arrests. As the state continues to grapple with issues of impaired driving, this case highlights the delicate balance between law enforcement authority and individual rights. Whether you are a resident or just passing through Florida, being informed about the Implied Consent Law and its implications can make a significant difference in navigating the complexities of DUI laws.
For more information on the implications of DUI tests and the penalties for refusal, you can check out the full details at Musca Law.