I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. Before private practice I taught at the police academy and served as chief operating officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, and I have watched the law of DUI blood draws move steadily in one direction for more than a decade: toward the warrant. Marlin is the clearest Florida statement yet of where that road ends, and our attorneys are already using it.

What Does the Fourth Amendment Require Before Police Draw Your Blood?

A warrant, unless a recognized exception applies — and the United States Supreme Court has spent the last thirteen years narrowing those exceptions for blood. Drawing blood is a search. In Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), the Court rejected the argument that because alcohol dissipates from the bloodstream over time, every drunk-driving investigation is automatically an emergency that excuses the warrant; exigency has to be shown case by case, on the totality of the circumstances. (Read the opinion.) Three years later, in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016), the Court drew the line that governs every roadside today: police may administer a breath test as a search incident to a lawful DUI arrest, but not a blood test — and a state cannot deem drivers to have “consented” to a blood test by criminalizing refusal. (Read the opinion.)

The practical takeaway is simple: when officers want breath, the arrest itself is usually enough; when they want blood, they need your actual agreement, a judge’s signature, or a genuine emergency they can prove later.

What Did the Fourth DCA Decide in State v. Marlin?

That prosecutors had been reading one of the court’s own opinions too generously, and that the warrant requirement means what it says. In State v. Marlin, No. 4D2025-1448 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 2, 2026), a driver drifted onto the shoulder of the Turnpike and struck four motorcycles, killing one rider and injuring two others. He was charged with two counts of DUI manslaughter, two counts of DUI with serious bodily injury, and additional injury and property-damage counts. Officers asked him to consent to a blood draw. He refused. Roughly two hours after the crash, law enforcement called a prosecutor, who told them to apply for a search warrant; about thirty minutes later the same prosecutor called back and said they could proceed without one because “exigent circumstances existed due to the elapsed time.” First responders then drew his blood by force.

The trial court initially denied suppression, openly “struggling” with a sentence in the Fourth District’s 2023 decision in State v. Acevedo that said an officer with probable cause could “coerce” a blood draw. On rehearing the judge reversed course and suppressed the results. The State appealed, and the Fourth District affirmed, holding:

1. No per se exigency. The natural metabolization of alcohol does not, by itself, justify a warrantless blood draw. Exigency must be decided on the totality of the circumstances in the particular case.
2. Warrant required regardless of implied consent. In the court’s words, “Unless a motorist gives actual consent or a court determines under the totality of the circumstances that exigent circumstances exist, a warrant must be obtained for a blood draw to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. This is true regardless of a state’s implied consent laws.”
3. The crash statute is a directive to get a warrant, not a substitute for one. Section 316.1933, which tells officers to obtain blood in crashes causing death or serious injury, “must assume the blood draw will be obtained with a warrant, absent consent or proof of exigent circumstances.”
4. Acevedo’s “probable cause” language is withdrawn. The court called that sentence “unnecessary to our decision and thus non-binding dicta,” noted that “the State has taken Acevedo’s language and run with it as a new exception to the Birchfield warrant requirement,” and receded from it: “We simply do not have the authority to create an exception contrary to United States Supreme Court authority.”

For defense lawyers who have been hearing “Acevedo says probable cause is enough” in suppression hearings for three years, that fourth holding is the one that matters most.

Does Florida’s Implied Consent Law Let Police Take Blood Anyway?

No — and this is the argument the State lost in Marlin. Florida has two statutes that talk about blood. Section 316.1932(1)(c), Florida Statutes, deems a driver who appears for treatment at a hospital, clinic, or “other medical facility” to have consented to a blood test when a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible, and expressly defines “other medical facility” to include an ambulance or other medical emergency vehicle. Section 316.1933, Florida Statutes, provides that when an officer has probable cause to believe an impaired driver caused death or serious bodily injury, the officer “shall require” a blood test and “may use reasonable force if necessary.”

Read in isolation, those statutes sound like authority to take blood on probable cause alone. Read against McNeely and Birchfield, they cannot be. A statute cannot supply the “consent” the Fourth Amendment requires — Birchfield said so directly — and the Fourth District followed the Fifth District’s decision in State v. Liles, 191 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), which had already rejected the argument that statutory implied consent satisfies the Constitution when a driver actually refuses. Marlin therefore reads section 316.1933 as a set of marching orders to officers — go get the blood in serious crashes — with an unstated constitutional condition: get a warrant, unless the driver agrees or a real emergency exists.

Judge Shepherd’s concurrence adds two clarifications that will matter in Tampa hospital cases. First, actual consent and statutory implied consent are different things: if a driver voluntarily agrees to a blood draw, officers do not have to recite the implied consent warnings, and the technical requirements of the implied consent statute do not apply. Second, the location of the draw is not what decides the question. An ambulance is a “medical facility” under the statute, but a nonconsensual blood draw in a hospital “must still satisfy either the warrant requirement or the impractical/impossible prong” of the implied consent law. Being in an emergency room does not waive your Fourth Amendment rights.

When Is a Warrantless Blood Draw Still Lawful in Florida?

Two doors remain open, and the State has to walk through one of them:

The consent door is where most Tampa Bay cases are actually litigated. A driver in a hospital bed, in pain, surrounded by uniforms, who says “okay” after being told that officers will “just get a warrant” if he does not, has not given the kind of free and voluntary consent the Constitution requires — that is the fact pattern Acevedo itself arose from, where the trial court found the driver had been “misadvised that if he did not agree, law enforcement would get a warrant and take a blood sample against his will.” Our attorneys take the recording, the timeline, and the exact words used in every one of these cases, because the difference between consent and acquiescence is usually a single sentence.

What Counts as Exigent Circumstances — and What Does Not?

The test is the totality of the circumstances, and Marlin is a textbook example of the State failing it. Alcohol dissipating in the blood is a factor; it is never enough by itself. Delay that officers could have avoided does not count in the State’s favor. In Marlin, law enforcement had two and a half hours after the crash, a prosecutor on the phone who initially told them to get a warrant, and no explanation for why a warrant could not have been sought during that window. Calling the passage of time an “emergency” when the passage of time was the officers’ own choice is exactly what McNeely forbids.

Genuine exigency looks different: a mass-casualty scene that occupies every available officer, a driver being airlifted to a distant trauma center, a medical procedure that will contaminate the sample, or — under the Supreme Court’s plurality decision in Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) — an unconscious driver who cannot take a breath test and requires immediate medical care. Even there, the analysis is fact-specific, and the State bears the burden.

What Happens to a DUI Case When the Blood Draw Is Suppressed?

The “unlawful blood alcohol level” theory of the case usually collapses, but the impairment theory often survives — which is why suppression is the beginning of the fight, not the end. Florida charges DUI on two alternative theories: a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 or more, or impairment of normal faculties. Without the blood result, the State cannot prove the number. It can still call the officers, play the body-camera footage, and argue driving pattern, odor, speech, and field exercises. In a crash case it will also argue causation and the mechanics of the collision, which have nothing to do with the blood.

So the real value of Marlin is leverage and structure. A DUI manslaughter case with a suppressed blood result is a very different negotiation than one with a 0.18 on the lab report, and it is a very different trial. Our full treatment of that landscape is in what DUI manslaughter is in Florida and how DUI manslaughter cases are defended. And where the State cannot get the blood it drew, it will often try to subpoena the blood the hospital drew for treatment — a separate battle covered in can the State get your medical records in a Florida DUI case.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our DUI defense page.

Does Marlin Apply in Hillsborough County?

Yes. Under Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992), “in the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts.” Marlin was decided by the Fourth District, which sits in West Palm Beach, but no other district court has adopted the probable-cause reading of Acevedo — Acevedo was the Fourth District’s own case, and the Fifth District’s Liles already pointed the same direction Marlin does. Until the Second District or the Florida Supreme Court says otherwise, a Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco circuit judge is bound to follow it. Our attorneys are citing it in pending motions now.

What Should You Do If Police Took Your Blood After a Crash?

Write down everything you can remember about how it happened, before the details fade, and get counsel before you talk to anyone else:

1. Whether you were asked, and what you said. “Yes,” “no,” “I guess,” and silence are four different legal events.
2. What you were told would happen if you refused. A threat to “get a warrant anyway” or to charge you with refusal is the heart of a voluntariness challenge.
3. The timeline. When the crash happened, when officers arrived, when the draw occurred, and whether anyone mentioned a warrant. In Marlin the timeline was the case.
4. Where the draw happened and who did it. Roadside, ambulance, or hospital; paramedic, nurse, or technician. Section 316.1933 limits who may draw blood and how.
5. Whether the hospital also drew blood for treatment. That sample is governed by different rules, and the State will come for it.

Do not assume the blood result is unassailable because it has a number on it. In Florida today, the number is only as good as the way it was obtained.

Your blood is only part of what happens at a crash scene. Our guide to whether the Florida accident report privilege requires you to talk to police after a traffic crash covers what you must tell the officer, what you can decline, and when your words can be used against you.

Frequently Asked Questions About Warrantless Blood Draws in Florida

Can I refuse a blood test in Florida?

You can decline to consent, and after Birchfield and Marlin the State cannot use your refusal as permission to draw blood without a warrant. Refusal of a lawfully requested blood test is admissible in evidence, and Florida’s refusal statute is written broadly, but whether refusing a warrantless blood draw can be punished criminally is constitutionally contested after Birchfield. If you refused and were charged, that is a defense issue, not a foregone conclusion.

Police got a warrant for my blood. Is that the end of it?

No. A warrant moves the fight from “was there a warrant” to “was the warrant good.” The affidavit must establish probable cause on its face, the officer’s sworn statements must be accurate, and the execution must comply with the statute’s limits on who may draw blood. Warrant-based draws are challenged less often than they should be.

I was in the hospital when they drew my blood. Doesn’t implied consent cover that?

Only if you did not refuse and a breath or urine test was genuinely impractical or impossible — and even then, Marlin and Judge Shepherd’s concurrence make clear that being in a hospital or ambulance does not lower the constitutional bar. If you refused, the State needs a warrant or real exigency, wherever you were.

What if I was unconscious?

The Supreme Court’s plurality in Mitchell v. Wisconsin said that an unconscious driver who cannot take a breath test will “almost always” present exigent circumstances, because the driver needs medical care and the evidence is disappearing. That is a strong argument for the State, but it is still a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, and the State still bears the burden of proving it.

Does Marlin help me if I was charged before September 2026?

Potentially, yes. If your case is pending, a motion to suppress can be filed or renewed now. If you already pleaded or were convicted, the analysis is more complicated and time-sensitive; talk to an attorney about your options immediately rather than assuming the window has closed.

The officer said section 316.1933 required him to take my blood. Was he wrong?

He was reading the statute the way the State read it in Marlin. The Fourth District has now said the statute is a directive to obtain blood in serious crashes with a warrant, absent consent or true exigency. The word “shall” in the statute does not override the Fourth Amendment.

If you or a family member is facing a DUI, DUI with serious bodily injury, or DUI manslaughter charge anywhere in Tampa Bay and blood was drawn without your agreement, the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — want to see the timeline before anyone talks about a plea. Call (813) 727-7159. The law changed on September 2, 2026, and it changed in your favor.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.

Impaired driving sits behind a large share of fatal crashes, with an estimated 11,904 alcohol-impaired-driving deaths in 2024 according to NHTSA. Fatal-crash cases draw intense pressure from prosecutors and the public, and that pressure is part of what a defense has to work against. At The Brancato Law Firm, we defend these cases across Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, and our founder Rocky Brancato has tried more than 150 jury trials to verdict. Our starting point is straightforward: a serious charge is not the same as a hopeless one.

On paper, DUI manslaughter carries a four-year mandatory minimum. The realistic sentencing exposure is closer to ten years once Florida’s scoresheet is run. That gap is exactly why these cases are worth fighting hard, and why the work has to start fast.

What the State has to prove in a DUI manslaughter case

Under Florida Statute 316.193, the State has to prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The accused drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle.
• The accused was impaired to the point that normal faculties were affected, or had a blood-alcohol or breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or higher.
• By reason of that operation, the accused caused or contributed to causing a death.

There is no intent requirement. The driver does not have to mean to hurt anyone. For a plain-language breakdown of the charge and its penalties, see our guide on what DUI manslaughter involves.

Impairment can be proven two separate ways. The “normal faculties” theory relies on officer observations, driving pattern, and field sobriety exercises. The “per se” theory relies on a chemical test reading of 0.08 or higher. Each path has its own weaknesses, which is why a real defense looks hard at both.

Why causation is where these cases are really won or lost

Florida’s causation standard is unusually low, and that is the most important thing for anyone facing this charge to understand. The statute requires only that the impaired operation “caused or contributed to causing” the death. The Florida Supreme Court in Magaw v. State held that the State does not have to prove the driver’s drinking caused the crash. It only has to prove that the operation of the vehicle did, and that any lack of care attributable to the impaired driver will satisfy the standard. Later cases like State v. Hubbard confirmed that simple negligence is enough and the driver need not be the sole cause.

That sounds discouraging. It is actually where the leverage is. Because the standard is so low, the defense invests heavily in proving that something else was the real cause.

There is a hard limit on the State’s theory. If the victim’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of the death, there is no DUI manslaughter. The classic illustration is a pedestrian who darts into traffic where no sober driver could have avoided the collision. Impairment does not turn an unavoidable accident into a homicide.

This is why independent accident reconstruction is the single strongest line of defense. A reconstructionist examines:

• Speed, point of impact, and the angle of the collision
• Visibility, lighting, weather, and road conditions
• Whether a second driver ran a red light or otherwise intervened
• Whether a vehicle defect, such as failed brakes, a tire blowout, or steering failure, caused the loss of control

We have seen a mechanical failure rather than the driver change the entire analysis of a crash. The cause is not always the person behind the wheel. We have also taken causation fights to a jury, including a fatal wrong-way crash on the Selmon Expressway where the central battle was the State’s theory of what actually caused the collision. DUI manslaughter is a homicide charge, and we approach it with the same forensic depth we bring to any homicide defense. Each case is unique, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Why the four-year mandatory minimum understates the real exposure

The statute sets a four-year mandatory minimum, and many people stop reading there. The real number is usually higher because of how Florida scores these cases.

DUI manslaughter is a Level 8 offense under Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code. A primary Level 8 offense scores 74 sentencing points. A death adds 120 victim-injury points. The code then subtracts 28 from the total and multiplies the remainder by 0.75 to produce the lowest permissible prison sentence. Because a death is always part of a DUI manslaughter case, the math runs like this:

• 74 points (primary offense) plus 120 points (death) equals 194 points
• 194 minus 28 equals 166
• 166 multiplied by 0.75 equals 124.5 months, or about 10.4 years

When the guideline floor is higher than the mandatory minimum, the higher number controls, unless the judge grants a lawful downward departure. So the working exposure on a standard DUI manslaughter case is closer to ten years than four. The same scoresheet, run without the death points, would land near 34.5 months. The death points are what make these cases so serious, and they are also why a credible attack on impairment or causation matters so much to the final sentence.

How Trenton’s Law changed DUI manslaughter penalties in 2025

Trenton’s Law, passed as HB 687, took effect on October 1, 2025, and raised the stakes considerably for repeat fatal-driving cases. Two changes matter most.

First, a prior conviction for DUI manslaughter, BUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide, or vessel homicide now elevates a new DUI manslaughter to a first-degree felony, with exposure up to 30 years. Older priors count regardless of how long ago they happened.

Second, the law made refusing a breath or urine test its own separate crime in certain circumstances. The decision to refuse a test now carries its own consequences, which makes early legal advice even more important. We cover the mechanics in our explainer on refusing a breath test in Florida.

The practical takeaway: if there is any prior fatal-driving conviction in the picture, the case is in first-degree-felony territory, and the defense strategy changes accordingly.

How the chemical evidence gets challenged

The State’s impairment proof usually rests on a breath or blood test. Both are heavily regulated, and both are genuinely vulnerable when the rules are not followed.

Challenging the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test

Florida’s evidentiary breath instrument is regulated by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement under Administrative Code Rule 11D-8. The defense can subpoena every maintenance, repair, and monthly-inspection record for the specific machine used and look for:

• Gaps in the required agency inspections
• Unauthorized repairs (only the manufacturer or an approved facility may repair the machine)
• A missing or interrupted 20-minute observation period, which guards against mouth-alcohol contamination
• Radio-frequency or temperature interference, which is worse when the machine sits in a patrol vehicle

Florida courts have excluded breath results when the program failed to follow these rules.

Challenging the blood test

In fatal crashes, blood is usually drawn. The defense scrutinizes the draw technique (an alcohol swab where a non-alcohol antiseptic is required can contaminate the sample), the chain of custody from collection through testing, and whether the lab measured hospital serum or plasma rather than whole blood. Serum readings tend to run higher than whole-blood readings, so an apparent number over 0.08 can shrink once an expert converts it correctly. Florida law also limits who may draw the blood to specific medical personnel.

Rising BAC and retrograde extrapolation

Alcohol keeps absorbing for roughly 30 to 90 minutes after drinking. A sample taken an hour or more after driving can overstate the BAC at the time the person was actually behind the wheel. A forensic toxicologist can work backward to argue the driver was below 0.08 while driving. We explore this in detail in our case study on why your BAC at the station is not your BAC behind the wheel.

Challenging the stop and the warrantless blood draw

September 2026 update: The law on warrantless blood draws just moved decisively in the defense’s favor. In State v. Marlin, No. 4D2025-1448 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 2, 2026), the Fourth District affirmed suppression of a forced blood draw in a fatal Turnpike crash, held that the natural dissipation of alcohol is never a per se exigency, and receded from the “probable cause” language in State v. Acevedo that prosecutors had been treating as an exception to the warrant requirement. Absent actual consent or case-specific exigent circumstances, a warrant is required — regardless of Florida’s implied consent law. Our full analysis is in can police take your blood without a warrant in Florida.

Two constitutional challenges come up repeatedly in fatal-crash cases.

The first is the stop. An officer needs reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or probable cause of a crime to pull a vehicle over. If the stop was unlawful, everything that followed, including officer observations, the breath test, and the blood draw, can be suppressed as fruit of an illegal stop.

The second is the blood draw. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Missouri v. McNeely that a warrantless blood draw requires genuine exigent circumstances, and that the natural dissipation of alcohol is not, by itself, an automatic emergency. If officers had time to get a warrant and did not, the blood result may be thrown out. In a fatal crash where the driver is taken to a hospital, there is often time to seek a warrant, which makes this a live issue in many cases.

Why scene and hospital statements often get suppressed

People involved in a fatal crash are frequently questioned at the scene or in the hospital while in shock. What they say can often be kept out of evidence.

Florida’s accident-report privilege, found in Section 316.066, provides that a crash report or a statement made to an officer for the purpose of completing one may not be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal. Under what Florida courts call the “changing hats” doctrine, set out in State v. Norstrom, 613 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1993), an officer who indicates the driver must answer has to expressly tell the driver that a criminal investigation has begun, then immediately give Miranda warnings, before those statements become admissible. Statements made during the crash-investigation phase, without that switch, are privileged.

This is a powerful suppression tool. It does not cover everything. An officer can still testify to physical observations like the odor of alcohol or slurred speech. But admissions made while a frightened driver believed he was simply helping complete a report often cannot be used against him.

The experts who actually move these cases

A serious DUI manslaughter defense is built on retained experts, and the order matters. Reconstruction comes first, because causation is the element with the most leverage.

• Accident reconstructionist. Establishes speed, impact geometry, and what actually caused the crash.
• Forensic toxicologist. Interprets BAC, handles retrograde extrapolation, and addresses serum-versus-whole-blood conversion.
• ASE-certified mechanic. Inspects the vehicle for a defect that caused the loss of control.
• Medical expert. Addresses cause of death and any pre-existing conditions.

All expert testimony has to satisfy Florida’s Daubert standard before a jury hears it. Our firm maintains a network of forensic experts, including forensic pathologists, accident reconstruction specialists, and former medical examiners. Our founder also spent years as a police academy instructor, training officers on how to investigate and testify, which sharpens cross-examination of the State’s witnesses. This is the forensic rigor we bring when we challenge the State’s forensic evidence, and it is the same standard we apply regardless of the charge. Each case is unique, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

DUI manslaughter vs. vehicular homicide, and how they get stacked

A fatal crash often produces two charges from the same event: DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide. They are both second-degree felonies, but they require the State to prove different things.

When both charges are filed, the defense builds independent defenses for each so the counts do not stack against the client. You can read more about the recklessness standard in our explainer on vehicular homicide in Florida.

What does a realistic reduction look like? Because of the mandatory minimum, the only path below four years is a negotiated reduction to a lesser charge, such as DUI with serious bodily injury or reckless driving, or a lawful downward departure. Reductions are harder to win in fatal cases than in standard DUIs, because prosecutors face public pressure. What moves the needle is the strength of the defense. A genuine problem with the State’s impairment proof, a credible causation theory pointing elsewhere, or suppressible evidence is what makes the State willing to talk.

Why the first 72 hours matter most

The single most important thing a person facing this charge can do is get an experienced Tampa DUI defense team working immediately. Fatal-crash investigations move fast, and evidence disappears.

In the first hours and days after a crash, the defense can:

• Preserve the vehicle’s event data recorder, or black box, which can show speed and braking before impact
• Track down dashcam and nearby surveillance footage before it is overwritten
• Identify and interview witnesses while memories are fresh
• Assert the accident-report privilege before damaging statements get locked in
• Get an independent reconstruction started while the scene is still intact

Once skid marks fade, footage is recycled, and witnesses scatter, that leverage is gone. Early counsel preserves the evidence the defense will need later. The sooner it starts, the more there is to work with.

Frequently asked questions about DUI manslaughter in Florida

Is DUI manslaughter a felony in Florida?

Yes. It is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. It becomes a first-degree felony, with exposure up to 30 years, if the driver left the scene or has a qualifying prior conviction under Trenton’s Law.

What is the minimum sentence for DUI manslaughter in Florida?

The statute sets a four-year mandatory minimum. In practice, the sentencing scoresheet usually produces a higher floor, often around 124.5 months (about 10.4 years), because a death adds 120 points to the calculation.

Can a DUI manslaughter charge be reduced or dropped?

Sometimes. Because of the mandatory minimum, the routes below four years are a negotiated reduction to a lesser charge or a lawful downward departure. A serious problem with the State’s proof of impairment or causation is usually what makes a reduction realistic.

Does the State have to prove the driver caused the crash?

The State has to prove the impaired driving caused or contributed to the death, which is a low standard. But if someone else, or the victim’s own conduct, was the sole cause of the crash, there is no DUI manslaughter.

Serious charges still have real defenses

A DUI manslaughter charge is among the most serious a person can face in Florida, and the exposure is real. But the State carries the burden on impairment and on causation, and both are open to challenge. The chemical evidence has to be collected and maintained by the rules. The stop and the blood draw have to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. The cause of the crash has to hold up against an independent reconstruction. The work that decides these cases starts long before trial.

This is the kind of case our firm is built for. We keep a limited caseload so every case gets thorough preparation, we prepare every matter as if it will go to trial, and our founder ran the largest criminal defense operation in Tampa Bay as Chief Operations Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, where he oversaw a staff of over 100 attorneys. That system-level knowledge informs how we read a fatal-crash case from the first day.

If you or someone in your family has been arrested or is under investigation for DUI manslaughter in the Tampa Bay area, the sooner you have a defense team in place, the more evidence can be preserved and the more options stay open. Call The Brancato Law Firm at (813) 727-7159 for a free, confidential consultation.

Each case is unique. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.