Case Law Update

What Is the Accident Report Privilege?

In Florida, the “accident report privilege” (sometimes referred to as the “crash report privilege”) refers to Florida Statute § 316.066(4) which provides that: “each crash report made by a person involved in a crash and any statement made by such person to a law enforcement officer for the purpose of completing a crash report required by this section shall be without prejudice to the individual so reporting. Such report or statement may not be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal.”

Purpose: To encourage/promote truthful reporting and cooperation with law enforcement without fear that those statements will be used against the speaker later in litigation, which could implicate the Fifth Amendment right to not self-incriminate. The legislative intent was that the accurate report of the circumstances surrounding an accident would allow the state to utilize that information to make the highways safer. Furthermore, that the “legislature has made the decision that in both criminal and civil actions, it is better that statements made by a defendant not be introduced before the jury than to restrict the goal of safer highways for society.” Florida Evidence 501.2 (West 2012 ed.).

What Is the Scope of the Privilege?

The privilege applies only to statements made for the purpose of completing the crash report — not to all information generated after an accident. These statements are those made by drivers and/or occupants involved in the crash to the investigating officer for the purpose of completing a crash report (i.e., “I was looking down at my radio before the impact.”)

The privilege does not apply to (and the following is therefore admissible):

• Officer’s independent observations (i.e., vehicle positions, skid marks, measurements, etc.);
• Results of BAC/breath/urine/field sobriety tests;
• Eyewitness statements by non-involved bystanders;
• Spontaneous statements/excited utterances not made to complete the crash report;
• Statements made after the officer “changes hats” and tells the suspect that he is now beginning a criminal investigation will generally be admissible. The officer is then required to provide Miranda warnings before questioning the driver to ensure admissibility of any statements. The accident report privilege is “fully operative, unless the statement made by the reporting person during the accident investigation is made after a waiver of Miranda rights or is otherwise not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination.” State v. Marshall, 695 So. 2d 719, 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), aff’d, 695 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1997); Wetherington v. State, 1D13-1327 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 16, 2014).

Key Holdings

The following are pivotal cases that define the scope, limits, and interpretation of the accident report privilege:

Brackin v. Boles, 452 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1984)

The Florida Supreme Court clarified that the statute’s purpose is to provide statutory immunity only for statements compelled by the reporting requirement — statements to comply with the § 316.066 duty — and not for unrelated evidence like BAC test results.

McTevia v. Schrag, 446 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)

The privilege inures only to those required to make the report (i.e., drivers/occupants). Statements by witnesses or volunteers not required to report are not covered.

Sottilaro v. Figueroa, 86 So. 3d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)

Reaffirmed McTevia: witness statements are not protected by the privilege, and improperly excluding impeachment evidence based on the accident privilege was reversible error.

Anderson v. Mitchell, 300 So. 3d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)

Clarified that § 316.066(4) is not a true evidence privilege in the traditional sense — instead, it is a rule of inadmissibility at trial. Thus, statements are typically discoverable even though they cannot be used as evidence at trial.

Williams v. Scott, 153 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)

Earlier case interpreting “involved” for the privilege — historically used as authority in some trials, but later appellate interpretations (e.g., Sottilaro) refine its reach.

Practical Implications for Attorneys

Admissibility Strategy

You typically cannot present the crash report or direct statements from reporting parties as evidence at trial.

Discovery Strategy

Use discovery tools to obtain the content of those statements and pursue other admissible evidence (depositions, witness statements, scene photos, surveillance).

Impeachment and Exception

In limited circumstances, certain statements (e.g., bystanders volunteering critical observations) may be admissible.

Pre-Trial Motions

Be prepared to distinguish between inadmissibility at trial and privilege at discovery in motions practice (Anderson).

This case law update is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The application of the authorities discussed depends on the specific facts of each case. Attorneys at Shiner Law Group are Members of The Florida Bar. This is attorney advertising.