GOODMAN v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, 4D14-3263. (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals of Florida
Number: inflco20160824151
Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 24, 2016
Summary: ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE PER CURIAM . We deny Appellant's motion for rehearing. We grant Appellant's June 28, 2016 Motion for Certification of Questions of Great Public Importance and certify the following questions to the Florida Supreme Court: (1) ARE THE CURRENT RULES OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT (FDLE) INADEQUATE UNDER STATE v. MILES, 775 So.2d 950 (Fla. 2000), FOR PURPORTEDLY FAILING TO SUFFICIENTLY REGULATE PR
Summary: ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE PER CURIAM . We deny Appellant's motion for rehearing. We grant Appellant's June 28, 2016 Motion for Certification of Questions of Great Public Importance and certify the following questions to the Florida Supreme Court: (1) ARE THE CURRENT RULES OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT (FDLE) INADEQUATE UNDER STATE v. MILES, 775 So.2d 950 (Fla. 2000), FOR PURPORTEDLY FAILING TO SUFFICIENTLY REGULATE PRO..
More
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
PER CURIAM.
We deny Appellant's motion for rehearing. We grant Appellant's June 28, 2016 Motion for Certification of Questions of Great Public Importance and certify the following questions to the Florida Supreme Court:
(1) ARE THE CURRENT RULES OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT (FDLE) INADEQUATE UNDER STATE v. MILES, 775 So.2d 950 (Fla. 2000), FOR PURPORTEDLY FAILING TO SUFFICIENTLY REGULATE PROPER BLOOD DRAW PROCEDURES, AS WELL AS THE HOMOGENIZATION PROCESS TO "CURE" A CLOTTED BLOOD SAMPLE?
(2) ARE THE PRESENT RULES SIMILARLY INADEQUATE FOR FAILING TO SPECIFICALLY REGULATE THE WORK OF ANALYSTS IN SCREENING BLOOD SAMPLES, DOCUMENTING IRREGULARITIES, AND REJECTING UNFIT SAMPLES?
WARNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
GERBER, J., concurs with the denial of the motion for rehearing, and dissents from the granting of the motion for certification of questions of great public importance.
Source: Leagle
