The 6-Month Window: How We Got DUI Cases Dismissed Before the Law Changed

The Ruling That Changed Everything (June 2024)

On June 14, 2024, the Sixth District Court of Appeal issued its decision in State v. Repple. The facts were straightforward: A Maitland police officer arrested Bryan Repple for DUI within the city limits. So far, nothing unusual.

But then the officer transported Repple to a breath test facility in Orange County, outside Maitland's city limits. There, the officer administered the breath test. The result showed an illegal blood alcohol level.

Repple's defense attorney argued that the officer had no authority to conduct the test outside his jurisdiction. The trial court agreed and suppressed the breath test results. The State appealed, expecting the appellate court to reverse.

Instead, the 6th DCA affirmed. The court held that municipal police officers lack law enforcement authority outside their city limits unless specific exceptions apply. The two recognized exceptions are "fresh pursuit" and mutual aid agreements. Neither applied here because the State failed to produce any mutual aid agreement in the record.

This created a direct conflict with the Fifth DCA's 2022 decision in State v. Torres, which had recognized an exception allowing municipal officers to request breath tests outside their jurisdiction. The conflict meant the Florida Supreme Court would eventually weigh in. But until then, the 6th DCA's ruling was the law in its district, which includes Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Brevard, Lake, Volusia, Flagler, Putnam, and St. Johns counties.

The Window of Opportunity

From June 14, 2024 until the Florida Supreme Court's reversal in December 2024, Repple was binding precedent in the 6th DCA. That meant any DUI defendant in those nine counties whose breath test was administered by a municipal officer outside city limits had a potential suppression issue.

Now, let me be clear about something: excluding the breath test doesn't automatically make the case disappear. DUI cases can proceed on other evidence. If the driving was bad, if the field sobriety exercises were a disaster, if the officer observed clear signs of impairment, the State can still prosecute. The breath test is often the strongest piece of evidence, but it's not always the only evidence.

What Repple did was remove the most damaging number from the equation. Without a breath test result, the State has to prove impairment through observations alone. That's a harder case to make. In some situations, it's hard enough that prosecutors chose to dismiss rather than proceed. In others, it gave us leverage to negotiate better outcomes.

This is what aggressive defense looks like. It's not about magic bullets that make cases vanish. It's about using every available tool to shift the odds in your favor. When Repple came down, we identified which cases it applied to and acted immediately. The law can change tomorrow. Today is what matters.

The Reversal: Florida Supreme Court (December 2024)

The State petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between the 5th and 6th DCAs. On December 30, 2024, the Court issued its opinion in State v. Repple, No. SC2024-1088. The result: 6th DCA reversed. Breath test admissible.

Justice Charles Canady wrote for the 5-1 majority, joined by Chief Justice Muniz and Justices Labarga, Couriel, and Francis. The majority's reasoning centered on Florida's implied consent statute, F.S. 316.1932.

But the justices weren't unanimous, and the separate opinions reveal the genuine tension in this area of law.

Justice Grosshans: "Right Result, Wrong Reason"

Justice Jamie Grosshans wrote separately, concurring in result only. She agreed the 6th DCA should be reversed, but she would have reached that conclusion through a different path.

Her argument focused on the remedy, not the underlying authority question. Even if the officer exceeded his authority by administering the test outside city limits, Justice Grosshans argued that suppression of the evidence was not the appropriate consequence.

This is a significant analytical distinction. The majority said the officer had authority to conduct the test. Justice Grosshans said that even if he didn't, the evidence shouldn't be suppressed anyway. Both paths lead to the same destination for prosecutors, but they have different implications for future cases involving other types of jurisdictional overreach.

Justice Sasso's Dissent: The Other Side

Justice Meredith Sasso was the lone dissenter. Her opinion deserves attention because it articulates the argument that had worked in the 6th DCA, and it represents a legitimate reading of Florida law on government power.

Justice Sasso's reading of the implied consent statute is fundamentally different from the majority's. She argues that the statute should be read as a limitation on government power, not an expansion of it.

Her reasoning follows a traditional principle of Florida law: municipalities cannot exercise powers outside their borders unless the Legislature expressly grants that authority. The implied consent statute doesn't contain any express grant of extraterritorial power to municipal officers. Therefore, according to Justice Sasso, courts shouldn't read one in.

This matters because it reflects a broader debate about how to interpret statutes affecting government power. Do we assume the government can do anything not expressly prohibited? Or do we require express authorization before the government can act? The majority and dissent represent fundamentally different answers to that question.

Timeline: The Rise and Fall of Repple

The Lesson: Why Timing Matters in Criminal Defense

Repple illustrates something that every criminal defendant should understand: the law is not static. Favorable rulings happen. Unfavorable reversals happen. The question is whether your attorney is paying attention when they do.

We used Repple in four cases during the window because we knew the ruling existed and we acted on it immediately. We didn't wait to see if the Supreme Court would reverse it. We didn't assume it would be overturned. We used the law as it was to improve outcomes for our clients, whether that meant dismissals, reduced charges, or better plea offers.

That's what aggressive defense means. It's not about being reckless. It's about knowing the law, watching for opportunities, and striking while the iron is hot. Because when the window closes, it closes.