The Florida Supreme Court ruled December 30 that municipal police officers have authority to conduct DUI breath tests outside their jurisdictional boundaries, resolving a conflict between district courts of appeal that had reached opposite conclusions on the issue.

In *State of Florida v. Bryan Allen Repple*, No. SC2024-1088, the court held that a Maitland police officer's request for a breath test outside city limits was authorized by Florida's implied consent law, even though the testing facility was located in Orange County beyond the officer's municipal jurisdiction.

The case began when Bryan Repple was arrested for driving under the influence by a Maitland police officer within the city limits. The officer then transported Repple to a breath test facility in Orange County, where the officer read Repple the warning required by Florida's implied consent law. Repple submitted to the breath test, which showed an illegal breath-alcohol level.

The legal question centered on whether the municipal police officer had valid authority to request the breath test outside Maitland's boundaries. This jurisdictional issue had divided Florida's district courts of appeal.

In *State v. Repple*, 2024 WL 2983786 (Fla. 6th DCA June 14, 2024), the Sixth District Court of Appeal had affirmed the trial court's order suppressing the breath test results. The district court agreed that the arresting Maitland officer lacked authority to request the test outside the City of Maitland, making the test results invalid.

However, before the Sixth District decided *Repple*, the Fifth District Court of Appeal had addressed the same issue and reached the opposite conclusion in *State v. Torres*, 350 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). The *Torres* court had found that officers could conduct such tests beyond municipal boundaries.

Recognizing this conflict, the Sixth District in *Repple* certified direct conflict with *Torres*. The State of Florida sought review from the Supreme Court, which accepted jurisdiction based on the certified conflict under Article V, Section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.

Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Canady concluded that the arresting officer's action was authorized by Florida's implied consent law despite occurring outside Maitland. The court quashed the Sixth District's decision in *Repple* and approved the result reached by the Fifth District in *Torres*.

The ruling clarifies that municipal police officers' authority under Florida's implied consent law extends beyond their territorial jurisdiction when conducting DUI breath tests. This decision ensures uniformity in how DUI cases are handled across Florida, eliminating the district court conflict that had created uncertainty for law enforcement and defendants.

Florida's implied consent law requires drivers to submit to breath, blood, or urine testing if lawfully arrested for DUI. The law creates legal consequences for refusal to submit to testing, including license suspension. The Supreme Court's decision affirms that this statutory framework applies regardless of where the actual testing occurs.

The case highlights practical realities in DUI enforcement, where officers may need to transport suspects to specialized testing facilities that are not located within their municipal boundaries. Many smaller municipalities lack their own breath testing equipment and rely on facilities in neighboring jurisdictions.

For law enforcement, the ruling provides clarity that arrest authority under the implied consent law travels with the arresting officer to testing facilities outside municipal limits. This removes potential procedural barriers that could have complicated DUI prosecutions statewide.

For defendants, the decision means that breath test evidence cannot be suppressed solely based on the testing location being outside the arresting officer's municipality. However, other procedural requirements for valid breath testing under Florida law remain in effect.

The Supreme Court's resolution of this jurisdictional question eliminates the possibility of different outcomes in similar cases depending on which district court of appeal handled the matter. Prior to this decision, defendants in the Fifth District faced one standard while those in the Sixth District operated under a different rule.

This case represents the latest chapter in ongoing legal developments surrounding DUI enforcement and testing procedures in Florida. The Supreme Court's decision provides definitive guidance for trial courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys handling DUI cases involving testing outside municipal boundaries.

The ruling also demonstrates the Supreme Court's role in resolving conflicts between district courts of appeal to ensure uniform application of state law. When district courts reach conflicting decisions on the same legal issue, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction allows for statewide resolution.

Law enforcement agencies across Florida can now proceed with confidence that transporting DUI suspects to testing facilities outside municipal limits will not automatically invalidate test results, provided all other legal requirements are met.