# John Goodman v. Florida Department of Law Enforcement

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 25, 2016 · 203 So. 3d 909

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9823918

## Case

- **Full name:** John GOODMAN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, Appellee
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** May 25, 2016
- **Citations:** 203 So. 3d 909; 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7961; 2016 WL 3002178
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Warner, Stevenson, Forst, Gerber
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9823918

## Opinion text

*916
On Motion fob 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 thé 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: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9823918. Public record. Not legal advice.