Case Name: Syndi R. TRACTON a/k/a Cindy Tracton, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH and Regina C. Siedentopf, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-12-22
Citations: 616 So. 2d 457
Docket Number: No. 91-2553
Parties: Syndi R. TRACTON a/k/a Cindy Tracton, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH and Regina C. Siedentopf, Appellees.
Judges: Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 616
Pages: 457–459

Head Matter:
Syndi R. TRACTON a/k/a Cindy Tracton, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH and Regina C. Siedentopf, Appellees.
No. 91-2553.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 22, 1992.
Rehearing Denied May 4, 1993.
Colodny, Fass & Talenfeld, North Miami, and Stuart B. Yanofsky, Sunrise, for appellant.
Fuller, Mallah & Associates, and Lawrence A. Fuller, Miami Beach, for appel-lees.
Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from an order issued pursuant to an adverse jury verdict in an action for false arrest, Tracton raises as reversible error the trial court's exclusion of the results of her blood-alcohol test and a DUI videotape of Tracton made two hours after her arrest. We agree that the erroneous exclusion of this relevant evidence was reversible error.
Tracton's vehicle was rear-ended by a drunk driver when she braked to avoid hitting a dog in the road. The impact of the crash caused Tracton's small jeep-like vehicle to spin around and roll over at least one and a half times. Minutes after emerging from the vehicle, still shaken, she was questioned by Officer Siedentopf, a traffic-accident investigator. Siedentopf noted that Tracton's eyes were bloodshot and that her breath smelled of alcohol. Tracton admitted that she had a drink at a party earlier in the evening. Siedentopf then subjected Tracton to roadside tests designed to assess her coordination and equilibrium. Siedentopf later testified that she had Tracton perform the tests just five to seven minutes after the roll-over, even though the officer customarily allowed a roll-over victim fifteen minutes to recover before conducting coordination tests. Following a heated verbal exchange with the police officer, Tracton was arrested and jailed based on a poor performance of the tests. No charges were ever filed.
Tracton brought this action against Officer Siedentopf and the City of Miami Beach for false arrest. The court granted Sieden-topf's motion in limine to exclude, as irrelevant, the results of Tracton's blood alcohol test and a DUI videotape taken approximately two hours after the arrest. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Sieden-topf. Tracton moved for a directed verdict or new trial contending that the exclusion of scientific evidence relevant to the issue of her impairment was error. The motion was denied; Tracton appeals.
It is agreed that the exclusion of the results of the appellant's Blood Alcohol Level (BAL) test, administered approximately two hours after her arrest, was error. The fact of a delay in submitting to the test went to the weight to be given that evidence by the jury and not to its admissibility. See Miller v. State, 597 So.2d 767 (Fla.1991) (result of blood alcohol test taken an hour and twenty minutes after defendant last operated motor vehicle is admissible evidence); Gallagher v. State, 606 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (a two-hour and twenty-two minutes old test is admissible).
Because the BAL test results, along with a DUI videotape which was also erroneously excluded, were the only nontestimonial evidence available to the plaintiff to establish the nonexistence of probable cause, we cannot agree that the exclusion of those items was harmless. An error cannot be deemed harmless where, as here, there is a reasonable probability that but for the error a result more favorable to the appellant may have been reached. Katos v. Cushing, 601 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (test for harmful error is whether, but for such error, a different result may have been reached).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ., concur.