This week’s Florida appellate decisions, covered case by case: a Sarasota sexual battery conviction reversed because the jury heard that the complainant accused her stepfather of abuse but never heard that the abuse was sexual, the one word the Second District said carried the defense. Plus PTSD evidence that needed an expert after Oquendo, the First District openly disagreeing with the Fourth on the abnormal mental condition instruction, a medical examiner allowed to relay an absent analyst’s toxicology, two traffic-stop decisions on exit orders and burned cannabis, a surcharge the State tried to concede away, two punitive damages proffers against commercial drivers, and a Pasco slip and fall that ended on summary judgment. Then a deep dive on the substitute analyst: who has to take the stand for a lab result, and what that means for the blood report in a DUI file.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: ten criminal decisions and three injury decisions, with two Sarasota cases, a Duval trucking case, and a Pasco premises case.

CHAPTERS
0:00 What the jury hears
1:56 Johnson: the one word the jury never heard
4:27 Bedward: PTSD after Oquendo
6:06 Gabriel: the First District disagrees with the Fourth
7:52 Fonte: the medical examiner and someone else’s toxicology
9:16 Parish and Smith: exit orders and burned cannabis
10:51 Adderley: the State concedes, and the court does the math
11:38 The rest of the week
12:31 Limousines and Gresham: when a jury hears punitive damages
16:08 Ausburn: the slip and fall nobody could describe
18:07 Deep dive: the substitute analyst and the DUI blood report
22:34 The working playbook for a lab result
25:15 The week in one line

Cases covered:
Johnson v. State, 2D2024-0982 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 25, 2026)
Bedward v. State, 4D2024-0072 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Gabriel v. State, 1D2023-3107 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Fonte v. State, 3D25-0850 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Parish v. State, 1D2025-3040 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Smith v. State, 1D2025-0497 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Adderley v. State, 1D2025-0188 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Brown v. State, 2D2025-2204 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 25, 2026)
Jenkins v. State, 5D2026-0151 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 25, 2026)
Beasley v. State, SC2026-1399 (Fla. Sept. 22, 2026)
Limousines of South Florida, Inc. v. Levit, 3D26-0024 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Gresham v. FEC Highway Services, LLC, 5D2024-2555 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 25, 2026) (Jay, C.J., dissenting)
Ausburn v. Wesley Chapel-T, LLC, 2D2025-0516 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 25, 2026)

Also discussed: Oquendo v. State, 420 So. 3d 466 (Fla. 2025); Perry v. State, 256 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); State v. Creller, 386 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2024); Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co., 434 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2026).

Discussed in the deep dive: Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004); State v. Belvin, 986 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 2008); State v. Johnson, 982 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2008); Baber v. State, 775 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2000); Sobota v. State, 933 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011); Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024); Robinson v. State, 3D23-1254 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 8, 2025).

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions, or the one-page lab witness checklist? Email [email protected] and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

Two probation officers knocked at a Sarasota rooming house. Nobody answered, and a man received forty-five months in prison. Smith leads this week’s Florida caselaw episode, including Chief Judge Lucas’s dissent and the dispute over what the testimony actually established. Then Kafus addresses willfulness separately, Miller examines a Manatee bond hearing, and Gil Pino provides the contrast: specific observations supporting a DUI stop.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: criminal law, DUI, probation, postconviction relief, stalking injunctions, personal injury, and public-sector employment. Local decisions include Sarasota, Manatee, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Polk Counties.

Also covered: an old misdemeanor capias, a DUI manslaughter plea claim, jail credit, a sentencing correction, future medical expenses, and noneconomic damages under the Public Whistleblower Act. The closing segment turns the curfew opinions into hearing preparation, including the questions to ask and the limits of what photographs and later visits can establish.

CHAPTERS
0:00 Show your work
1:27 Smith: the Sarasota curfew check
4:28 Lucas’s dissent: loud enough, long enough
5:57 Kafus: willfulness is a separate question
7:11 Cantrell: the misdemeanor capias and the missing search evidence
9:23 Miller: the Manatee bond hearing
10:53 Gil Pino: the testimony supporting the DUI stop
12:55 Hernandez: the plea claim and the prejudice analysis
14:04 Misner and Arreguin: jail credit and sentencing
14:55 The Lee County stalking injunction
15:45 Crews and Smiley
16:10 Reinberger: future medical expenses and pain and suffering
19:22 Pierre: public-sector whistleblower damages
19:51 Curfew hearing preparation
23:16 The week in one question

Cases covered:
Smith v. State, No. 2D2025-1715 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Kafus v. State, No. 6D2025-1445 (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Cantrell v. State, No. 6D2026-0749 (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Miller v. State, No. 2D2026-1679 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Gil Pino v. State, No. 3D25-1127 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 16, 2026)
Hernandez v. State, No. 2D2026-1292 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Misner v. State, No. 5D2026-0697 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Arreguin v. State, No. 4D2026-1087 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 16, 2026)
Lee County stalking injunction, No. 6D2024-0447 (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Crews v. State, No. 6D2025-1085 (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Smiley v. State, Nos. SC2024-1361 and SC2025-0250 (Fla. Sept. 17, 2026)
Progressive Select Insurance Co. v. Reinberger, No. 2D2024-2657 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
City of Boynton Beach v. Pierre, No. 4D2026-0133 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 16, 2026)

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions or the curfew hearing cross-examination checklist? Email [email protected] and I’ll send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

This week’s Florida appellate decisions, covered case by case: deputies found a man asleep behind the wheel in a Hillsborough parking lot, and the whole case turned on whether the welfare check was still running when a deputy told him to roll down his window. The Second District said it was, and reversed the suppression order on the State’s own appeal. Plus a first-degree murder conviction reversed because the trial court answered one evidence question and never asked the second one, a manslaughter plea withdrawn because counsel never mentioned a suppression motion, a three-year minimum mandatory thrown out because the enhancement statute defines possession differently than the offense does, five defendants told that the six-person jury argument belongs in Washington, and a UM carrier that lost its rescission claim on the tortfeasor’s tax returns. Then a deep dive on the question every sleeping-driver case turns on: when does a welfare check end.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: eleven criminal decisions and one injury decision, with a Hillsborough DUI stop, two Sarasota sentencing cases, a Manatee plea withdrawal, and an uninsured motorist appeal out of Indian River County.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The second question
1:27 Fuchs: the sleeping driver, and the window
4:12 Wellons: the flight evidence the jury never heard
6:16 Ruiz: the plea, and the suppression motion nobody mentioned
8:28 Hamilton: possession, and possession under the enhancement
9:49 The six-person jury cases, and how to preserve the issue
11:30 Edwards and Gunter: the scoresheet and the costs order
12:15 Auguste: the State concedes the door was closed
13:22 The rest of the week
13:42 Clark: Judge Neff on Florida’s Anders procedure
14:11 Heimler: the UM settlement and the insolvent tortfeasor
16:26 Deep dive: when does a welfare check end
23:28 The working playbook for a sleeping driver file
25:51 The week in one line

Cases covered:
State v. Fuchs, 2D2025-1542 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Wellons v. State, 4D2025-2340 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Ruiz v. State, 2D2025-2118 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Hamilton v. State, 2D2025-1231 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Mullins v. State, 2D2025-0655 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Tolliver v. State, 2D2025-1345 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Oakley v. State, 2D2025-1120 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Brown v. State, 2D2025-1071 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Edwards v. State, 2D2025-1211 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Gunter v. State, 6D2025-1045 (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 10, 2026)
Auguste v. State, 4D2024-3260 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Clark v. State, 1D2025-0453 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 9, 2026) (Neff, J., concurring)
Progressive American Insurance Co. v. Heimler, 4D2025-1854 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2026)

Discussed in the deep dive: Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993); Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973); Greider v. State, 977 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Dermio v. State, 112 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Daniels v. State, 346 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Danielewicz v. State, 730 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Delorenzo v. State, 921 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); State v. Leiby, No. 4D2024-2490 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 5, 2025); Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194 (2021); Case v. Montana, No. 24-624 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2026); Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011).

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions, or the one page welfare check timeline worksheet? Email [email protected] and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

This week's Florida appellate decisions, covered case by case: a driver refused a blood draw after a fatal Turnpike crash and the Fourth District affirmed suppression on the State's own appeal, receding from the one sentence prosecutors had been citing as a probable cause exception to the warrant requirement. Plus a Pinellas sexual battery conviction reversed for fundamental error over a steak knife and two condoms that had nothing to do with the case, a Tampa grand theft that became petit theft because nobody testified to depreciation, a fifth door shut on last week's Erlinger argument, and the Florida Supreme Court's rulings in the final week before a scheduled execution. Then a deep dive on the three ways the State can take blood in a DUI case and what each one now requires.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: all criminal, with the DUI blood draw case of the year, two Pinellas decisions, two Hillsborough decisions, and a death warrant that runs out next Thursday.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The shortcut week
1:12 Marlin: the blood draw, the dicta, and the door that closed
5:48 Harris: the Pinellas timeline case Marlin now matches
7:26 Green: a Pinellas sexual battery reversed for fundamental error
10:27 Russell: a Tampa grand theft with no depreciation testimony
12:47 Foster: the fifth door on the Erlinger argument
13:36 Conahan: the final week before an execution
15:02 Lorincz, Agee, and the week's hundred and seventy affirmances
16:06 Deep dive: the three ways the State takes blood, and what each requires
21:30 The week in one line

Cases covered:
State v. Marlin, 4D2025-1448 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 2, 2026)
State v. Harris, 2D2023-1430 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 16, 2024)
Green v. State, 2D2024-1803 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 4, 2026)
Russell v. State, 2D2024-1373 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 28, 2026)
Foster v. State, 2D2024-2771 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 4, 2026)
Conahan v. State, SC2026-1234, SC2026-1236, SC2026-1281 & SC2026-1282 (Fla. Sept. 3, 2026)
Lorincz v. State, 5D2024-3437 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 3, 2026)
Agee v. State, 1D2023-3321 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 2, 2026)

Discussed in the deep dive: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966); Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013); Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016); Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. 840 (2019); State v. Acevedo, 366 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); State v. Liles, 191 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1992); State v. Geiss, 70 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); sections 316.1932, 316.1933, and 933.02, Florida Statutes.

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions, or the one page blood draw timeline worksheet? Email [email protected] and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

This week's Florida appellate decisions, covered case by case: the same Sixth Amendment sentencing argument turned away at two different doors in two different districts, a Jimmy Ryce challenge split between the right vehicle and the wrong one, a State appeal that lost in one word, a surgeon suing his own divorce lawyers and the discovery order that got quashed, a PIP claim that ended when the examination under oath was skipped, and new service rules for writs landing October 1. Plus a deep dive: the State of Florida has conceded in a footnote that the prison releasee reoffender statute is unconstitutional under Erlinger, and the one procedural door still open for raising it.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: four criminal decisions, two on the injury side, and an appellate rule change that affects everybody.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The wrong door week
1:17 Hawkins: Erlinger is not retroactive, and a certified question still pending
3:46 Carpenter: the PRR life sentence and the wrong vehicle
5:20 Shaw: appeal and certiorari against one order, one of them dismissed
6:38 Jenkins: the State appealed and lost, in one word
7:32 Adorno-Cunill v. Dylewski: the discovery denial that eviscerated a defense
10:30 Feijoo: the examination under oath is a condition precedent
11:12 New appellate rules 9.020 and 9.100, effective October 1
11:58 The week's hundred affirmances, in one point
12:28 Deep dive: the concession in footnote thirteen, and the one door left
18:54 The week in one line

Cases covered:
Hawkins v. State, 3D23-0292 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 26, 2026)
Carpenter v. State, 1D2024-2821 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 26, 2026)
Shaw v. State, 3D24-1690 & 3D24-1934 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 26, 2026)
State v. Jenkins, 2D2025-1129 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 21, 2026)
Law Offices of Adorno-Cunill & Damas, P.L. v. Dylewski, 3D26-0840 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 26, 2026)
Feijoo, M.D., P.A. v. Progressive American Ins. Co., 3D25-0472 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 27, 2026)
North Florida Regional Medical Center v. Maloney, 1D2026-1317 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 24, 2026)
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020 and 9.100, SC2025-2000 (Fla. Aug. 27, 2026)

Discussed in the deep dive: Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013); Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024); Maye v. State, SC2023-1184 (Fla. May 15, 2026), including footnote 13; Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 2025); Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014); Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008); section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes.

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions, Maye with footnote 13 flagged, or the one page objection script for PRR and habitual offender sentencings? Email [email protected] and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

This week's Florida District Court of Appeal decisions, covered case by case: two counts of resisting arrest out of one continuous act at a high school, a juvenile sentence review clock set ten years late and fixed because the prisoner did the math himself, a juvenile sentence over the statutory cap, two suppression losses on the totality of the circumstances, a belated appeal granted, and two men told where the courthouse door closes. Plus a deep dive: how Florida counts crimes, and why Blockburger is two tests rather than one.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: all criminal, for the second week running. Injury lawyers, the deep dive on double jeopardy still travels.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The counting week
0:58 K.B.: two counts of resisting from one continuous act
3:28 Wriden: the juvenile review clock, set ten years late
5:19 D.O.: a juvenile sentence over the statutory cap
5:48 Ptomy and Q.C.: two suppression losses on the totality
7:25 Pope: a belated appeal, granted
8:03 St. Fabre: the right rule, the wrong vehicle
10:01 Tisdol and Jackson: where collateral attack ends
11:14 Deep dive: how Florida counts crimes
18:59 The week in one line

Cases covered:
K.B., a Child v. State, 5D2025-1370 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 21, 2026)
Wriden v. State, 6D2024-2549 (Fla. 6th DCA Aug. 21, 2026)
D.O., a Child v. State, 5D2025-0775 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 21, 2026)
Ptomy v. State, 1D2025-1029 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 19, 2026)
Q.C., a Child v. State, 3D2025-1145 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 20, 2026)
Pope v. State, 5D2026-2164 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 21, 2026)
St. Fabre v. State, 1D2025-3163 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 19, 2026)
Tisdol v. State, 3D2026-0695 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 20, 2026)
Jackson v. State, 5D2026-1318 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 21, 2026)

Discussed in the deep dive: section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes; Trappman v. State (Fla. 2024); Gil v. State, 118 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2013).

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions? Email [email protected] and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

What is actually inside the course that qualifies officers to give this test. I sat through it twice. If you're a defense lawyer and any of this is useful, take it and run it. For the manual editions and studies quoted in this episode, write to [email protected]. Rory Safir practices criminal defense and personal injury law in St. Petersburg, Florida. (727) 472-8096. This episode is commentary and education, not legal advice.

This week's Florida District Court of Appeal decisions, covered case by case: a conviction with no valid charging document behind it, a community control revocation half-built on hearsay, a warrant too broken for good faith and another just broken enough to survive, speed that is not enough except when it is, and one pro se litigant told enough is enough. Plus a deep dive: the good faith exception, and how one court drew both of its lines in one day.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: all criminal. Injury lawyers, light week; the good faith deep dive is still worth your commute.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The paperwork week
0:57 Herrera Gutierrez: convicted, with no charge ever filed
2:00 Rogers: hearsay, and the revocation remand
3:47 State v. Barnes: the warrant good faith could not save
5:24 Serena: practical accuracy, not technical nicety
6:35 Audinot Lugo: speed alone, except when it is
8:08 Taylor, and the week's PCAs
9:20 Deep dive: the good faith exception, both ends of it
14:28 The opinions, free, by email

Cases covered:
Herrera Gutierrez v. State, 5D2026-0928 and 5D2026-0930 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 14, 2026)
Rogers v. State, 6D2025-1465 (Fla. 6th DCA Aug. 14, 2026)
State v. Barnes, 6D2025-0522 (Fla. 6th DCA Aug. 14, 2026)
Serena v. State, 6D2025-0679 (Fla. 6th DCA Aug. 14, 2026)
Audinot Lugo v. State, 6D2025-1884 (Fla. 6th DCA Aug. 14, 2026)
Taylor v. State, 5D2026-0947 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 14, 2026)

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions? Email [email protected] and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

One figure in one study produces both numbers. Which one gets said in court depends on who is talking.

CHAPTERS
0:00 A number that decides these cases
0:35 The plan for the next ten minutes
1:02 San Diego, 1998
1:44 Same page, same four boxes
2:16 88 and 37: which question you ask
2:39 The fair version, and the 72 percent
3:29 What the test was validated to do
4:19 "Irrelevant": their word, not mine
4:34 The laboratory it came from
4:44 1977: almost nothing on driving
5:10 1981: 78 eyeballed, 88 measured
5:49 How well the officers agreed
6:36 Two checks that came later
6:47 Standing still: the Optometry paper
7:42 How to say it honestly in a hearing
8:04 Pinellas County. My county.
8:40 The refusals, and the ceiling
9:41 The anchor: why the eyes run first
11:02 The recheck instruction
11:42 Where we've been
12:06 Your question for the hearing
12:22 Next: three days in a classroom

If you're a defense lawyer and any of this is useful, take it and run it. For the manual editions and studies quoted in this episode, write to [email protected].

Rory Safir practices criminal defense and personal injury law in St. Petersburg, Florida. (727) 472-8096. This episode is commentary and education, not legal advice.

Full transcript: https://share.transistor.fm/s/4418234d/transcript

The strangest piece of evidence in a Florida DUI case, and the only one nobody can review. Part one: what nystagmus actually is, the three clues, the sixteen-second floor, and how forty-five degrees gets guessed.

CHAPTERS
0:00 One in the morning, on the shoulder
0:25 The evidence nobody can review
1:18 The training I took to say any of this
2:35 You can't see the result. You can see everything else.
3:11 First, the word: what the jerking actually is
4:18 Forty causes that look identical
5:11 Alcohol is systemic: the both-eyes rule
6:03 The test itself, and the prechecks
7:41 Go look at his report
8:12 Three clues, in order
9:30 Sixteen seconds. That's arithmetic.
10:47 "If you have to convince yourself, it isn't really there"
11:02 The clues his own hand can manufacture
12:54 Forty five degrees, with no device
13:59 The 1977 apparatus: chin rest and measured stops
15:27 Your question for cross
15:50 Next time: 88 percent and 37 percent

If you're a defense lawyer and any of this is useful, take it and run it. For the manual editions and studies quoted in this episode, write to [email protected].

Rory Safir practices criminal defense and personal injury law in St. Petersburg, Florida. (727) 472-8096. This episode is commentary and education, not legal advice.

Full transcript: https://share.transistor.fm/s/abf8b424/transcript