Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Name:

E-mail:

Phone Number:

Zip Code:

Your Question:

Editor: Will Hanlon & Charlie Lambert
Profession: Tampa Defense Attorneys

Tampa DUI Attorney Analyzes the Accident Report Privilege and the Insignificance of the "Changing of Hats"

Category: Criminal Law

There aren't very many events in life that rival the terrible feeling of being arrested for Driving Under the Influence. When an accident is involved this experience can many times become even worse. Most lawyers engaged in defending these cases are very familiar with the "Accident Report Privilege" and its repercussions. This article is designed to give some guidance to non-lawyers who have very little knowledge on this law and how it operates.

The accident report privilege springs from every driver's statutory duty to answer questions posed to him/her by law enforcement when they have been involved in an accident. When someone is involved in an accident and law enforcement suspects them of being intoxicated it presents a special problem. The duty to report compels the DUI driver to answer all the officer's questions about the accident, but in the process the answers to those questions could lead to very incriminating statements about a potential criminal charge of DUI. Every person suspected of committing a crime also has a right to be notified of their fifth amendment rights (usually before a "custodial interrogation" or a formal arrest) prior to law enforcement questioning them about the alleged criminal conduct. To address the problem of compelling possible incriminating statements from driver's involved in accidents that could flow from criminal conduct the Florida Legislature enacted the "Accident Report Privilege" (See Florida Statute 316.066(7)). The statute states that statements by a suspected driver to law enforcement during the accident phase of the officer's investigation are privileged and inadmissable against the driver in any trial civil, or criminal. The only exception to that rule involves statements made by the driver to the officer that do not violate the driver's privilege against self-incrimination (this exception can arise when the driver's statment qualifies as an "excited utterance"). In response to this statute law enforcement officers investigate an accident that could involve a criminal traffic charge in a different way. They initially ask questions of the driver during the "accident phase" of their investigation (like they would after any traffic accident). If they become suspicious during the accident phase of their investigation that the driver was involved in criminal conduct (DUI, vehicular manslaughter), they begin the "criminal phase" of their investigation.

The critical question for anyone suspected of being involved in any criminal traffic charge is when does the "accident phase" end, and the "criminal phase" begin. The answer to this question will determine which statements, made by the accused, are admissable. Florida Courts have debated the proper procedure to follow when notifying a driver involved in an accident that the investigation is changing from the accident phase to the criminal phase. For years many courts felt that the "changing of hats" method properly notified the suspected DUI driver involved in a crash that the officer was moving from an accident investigation to a criminal investigation. The "changing of hats" amounts to an officer notifying the driver that, "Mr. Smith, I am now changing from an accident investigation to a criminal investigation, will you answer my questions". The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that the "changing of hats" is an insufficient approach to notify the suspected driver that he or she is no longer compelled to answer the officer's questions pursuant to Florida's duty to report statute. The Florida Supreme Court's position is simple. The focus should be on whether the driver's Fifth Amendment Rights were violated. The only way to adequately notify someone that their duty to report information regarding the accident is over, and they have a right to remain silent is by reading them their Miranda Rights. In their holding the Florida Supreme Court stated the following:

"We hold that the privilege granted by section 316.066 is not applicable in this case where Norstrom was not told that he had to respond to the questions asked by the officers and where Norstrom was given his Miranda rights. Accordingly, we quash the decision of the district court on this issue. Furthermore, we also disapprove its prior decision in West v. State, 553 So.2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA1989). To clarify our decision, we emphasize that the privilege granted under section 316.066 is applicable if no Miranda warnings are given. Further, if a law enforcement officer gives any indication to a defendant that he or she must respond to questions concerning the investigation of an accident, there must be an express statement by the law enforcement official to the defendant that "this is *441 now a criminal investigation," followed immediately by Miranda warnings, before any statement by the defendant may be admitted."

Some prosecutors read the Florida Supreme Court's holding in Norstrom v. State literally, and believe that Miranda is only required when the officer notifies the driver that he/she has a duty to report. The holding in the Norstrom case is clarified in the third district court of appeals decision in State v. Marshall. In a footnote the 3rd DCA gave a clearer meaning to the Florida Supreme Court's statement that a "changing of hats" must occur, and Miranda must be read when the officer proactively notifies the suspected driver that they must answer the investigating officer's questions. In their footnote the 3rd DCA stated the following,

"In so holding, the court pointed out that not only had Norstrom been given his Miranda rights, but also "Norstrom was not told that he had to respond to the questions asked by the officers...." 613 So.2d at 440. The court also stated: Further, if a law enforcement officer gives any indication to a defendant that he or she must respond to questions concerning the investigation of an accident, there must be an express statement by the law enforcement official to the defendant that "this is now a criminal investigation," followed immediately by Miranda warnings, before any statement by the defendant may be admitted.

Id. at 440-41. As we interpret it, the court is addressing the situation which would exist if, during the accident investigation phase, the investigating officer administered Miranda warnings but then at some point also told the reporting person that he or she was required to respond to questions concerning the investigation of the accident. Telling the reporting person that he or she must answer questions during the accident investigation would undo any earlier-administered Miranda warnings. It would be then necessary at the conclusion of the accident investigation to advise the reporting person that the criminal investigation was beginning and to administer new Miranda warnings."

The problem is that many prosecutors feel the only time that Miranda is necessary is when the officer proactively notifies the suspected driver that he or she must answer questions pursuant to the "duty to report" statute. However, the 3rd District Court of Appeals interpretation of the Norstrom holding in Marshall should be accepted by all courts in the State of Florida because the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Marshall opinion. This in effect makes Marshall, and the third district's interpretation of the holding in Norstrom the law in the State of Florida.

For more information on DUI link to our website.

Sometimes Even Lawyers Need to Know When to HIre a Lawyer

Category: Criminal Law

C. v. V; Judge: William Law; Date: June 21, 2007

FACTS: Our client was a defendant in a civil suit involving the sale of a medical waste disposal unit. Early in the law suit the plaintiffs petitioned the court for an injunction to prohibit the sale of the unit to buyers in Spain. During that hearing the plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Vance misled the Court in several ways in an effort to promote the sale of the unit without the consent of the shareholders. Plaintiff's counsel felt the representations were so misleading they motioned the Court to find Mr. Vance in Criminal Contempt. Initially, plaintiffs counsel's attempts to get the Court to grant the motion failed, but Judge Willard Pope eventually granted the motion because of the affadavits claiming to have knowledge of the falsity of the statements. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 (a).

Civil Attorney, John Schifino, of the Williams Schifino law firm represented Mr. Vance in the shareholder derivative suit. Once the Court issued the Order to Show Cause, and Mr. Vance was threatened with the possibility of being convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail, Mr. Schifino called our office immediately. Opposing counsel, on the other hand, decided to prosecute the contempt charge without the assistance of a criminal attorney. Many of the plaintiffs in charge of the management of this civil suit were themselves lawyers, which made the decision to allow a civil attorney to prosecute this criminal charge even more surprising. It was a decision that turned out to be fatal to the prosecution of the charge.

After Judge Pope issued the Order to Show Cause the case was transferred to Judge William Law's court room. A couple of months after the arraignment of the criminal charge, opposing counsel withdrew from the case, and the shareholders retained another civil attorney. Months passed and opposing counsel made no efforts to set up depositions. Unlike criminal cases, it is not unusual for civil cases to last several years. Opposing counsel, probably because he is used to prosecuting civil cases, felt that his recent introduction into the case warranted a number of continuances to allow him to familiarize himself with the case. He refused to appreciate a right that all criminal defendant's share; the right to a speedy trial.

Mr. Vance, like any one else charged with a crime, has a right to a speedy trial. If the prosecution fails to try a criminal defendant's case within a specified period of time, and again fails to try the defendant's case within the recapture period, the defendant is entitled to discharge (dismissal) from the crime. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(p). In Mr. Vance's case the speedy trial eventually expired, and we filed a notice of expiration of speedy trial with the Court, and the prosecution. The prosecution, probably because he had no experience in criminal court, made no efforts to respond to the notice of expiration of speedy trial. His failure to act led us to file a Motion for Discharge (Dismissal). After hearing our argument at the Motion for Discharge hearing the Court turned to opposing counsel for rebuttal. During opposing counsel's argument he responded to the judge's questioning by saying, "I am not sure your honor, because I am not a criminal attorney".

I make this point to emphasize a theme that repeats itself in many of the criminal cases that we see at our office. That recurring theme is the failure of many people being investigated for criminal charges to hire a criminal attorney as soon as they have been contacted by law enforcement. Many people, probably like the lawyer who decided to prosecute this criminal contempt charge, feel that criminal matters are simplistic. They feel that they might be able to save themselves the fee paid to a criminal attorney if they resolve this criminal matter on their own. Tell that to the civil attorney who attempted to prosecute the criminal charges against our client. As an esteemed colleague of mine once said, "If you find out you have a heart problem, you don't go see a podiatrist".

Seminar For Tampa DUI Lawyers

Category: Firm News

A seminar for handling DUI cases is being offered on Friday, May 19, 2006. The seminar is being held at the Tampa Marriott Waterside, and will focus on the following issues:

(1) DMV - Hearings and Appeals (Writ of Certiorari)
(2) Case Law Update
(3) Jury Selection, Opening Statements and Closing Arguments
(4) Pretrial Motions And Blood/Breath Updates
(5) DUI Trial themes and tactics
(6) Attacking Field Sobriety Tests

The course has been approved by the Bar for 7 CLE credits and the speakers are all well known local DUI lawyers.

Closing Argument Competition

Category: Firm News

The Florida Bar has approved CLE credits for participation in the Closing Argument Competition at the Stetson University College of Law. The competition does not take a lot of your time, and it is very helpful to the students. Four students competed in the last round yesterday and Ashley Jones ended up winning. According to the competition's coordinator, Megan Lattz, Ms. Jones won a $300.00 cash prize, and will be exempt from having to compete in the first round of competition in Stetson's trial team competition. If you are interested Ms. Laatz is looking for more lawyers to act as jurors on the Opening Statement competition coming up soon. You can reach Megan Lattz through the Stetson University School of Law at (727)576-0584.