Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Timothy A. PELOQUIN, John V. Weller, Michael P. McDermott, John Mathew Marriott, David W. Schurle, Richard A. Paganini, and Donald T. Simmons, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-12-15
Citations: 678 So. 2d 1303
Docket Number: Nos. 94-01552, 94-01761, 94-02207, 94-02208, 94-02939, 94-02942 and 94-02945
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Timothy A. PELOQUIN, John V. Weller, Michael P. McDermott, John Mathew Marriott, David W. Schurle, Richard A. Paganini, and Donald T. Simmons, Appellees.
Judges: RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 678
Pages: 1303–1303

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Timothy A. PELOQUIN, John V. Weller, Michael P. McDermott, John Mathew Marriott, David W. Schurle, Richard A. Paganini, and Donald T. Simmons, Appellees.
Nos. 94-01552, 94-01761, 94-02207, 94-02208, 94-02939, 94-02942 and 94-02945.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 15, 1995.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Patricia E. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, and Bemie McCabe, State Attorney, and C. Marie King, Assistant State Attorney, Clearwater, for Appellant.
Victor J. Pellegrino of Bauer, Crider & Pellegrino, Tampa, for Appellees, Timothy A. Peloquin, and John V. Weller.
Denis M. deVlaming, Clearwater, for Ap-pellees, Michael P. McDermott and John Mathew Marriott.
Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Anne M. Sylvester, Assistant Public Defender, New Port Richey, for Appellees, David W. Schurle, Richard A. Paganini, and Donald T. Simmons.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, the state seeks review of the county courts' nonfinal orders which declare unconstitutional section 316.193(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1993) (the DUI vehicle impoundment law). The state charged the defendants with DUI, and after pretrial hearings, the county courts found section 316.193(6)(d) unconstitutional. The record reveals that the substantive charges remain dormant.
Pursuant to section 316.193(6)(d), the issue of vehicle impoundment does not arise until after conviction, and as in the case at hand, a pretrial order declaring a statute or ordinance unconstitutional, without more, is not appealable. State v. Calloway, 589 So.2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), review denied, 599 So.2d 654 (Fla.1992). The orders that we have reviewed deal with postconviction im-poundment and do not bear upon the trial of the cases; hence, they do not meet the standard for review by certiorari jurisdiction recognized in State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988). These cases are therefore dismissed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.