Tallahassee, FL - In a split ruling the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the state cannot suspend the drivers’ licenses of motorists who refuse blood alcohol tests if the refusal did not follow a lawful stop.

Rolling back a law passed by lawmakers in 2006, the 4-3 decision gives defendants more ammunition to get their licenses back by allowing them to argue whether they were lawfully pulled over in the first place, defense attorneys and agency officials agreed Thursday.

“The Legislature has authorized the administration of a breath test only if it is incident to a lawful arrest and based on probable cause to believe that the person driving was under the influence of alcoholic beverages,” the court said in its unsigned majority opinion.

Florida’s “implied consent” law requires motorists to take sobriety tests if the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe they are impaired. If they refuse, their licenses are immediately suspended, an administrative duty given to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Motorists can challenge the suspension by taking their case to an agency hearing officer.

Following changes made in 2006, DHSMV hearing officers haven’t been required to consider the legality of the underlying stop during administrative hearings challenging a suspension. The hearing officer need only determine that the person refused to take a blood test.

On Thursday, the court ruled that an administrative suspension could only come following a valid arrest. The ruling will have no effect on criminal DUI proceedings.

Attorneys for two defendants whose cases were consolidated argued that without the ability to challenge the legality of the underlying arrests, law enforcement officers could confiscate the licenses of any driver for no reason and the suspect would have no recourse to appeal.

“This gives defendants a fighting chance,” said David Robbins, whose Jacksonville law firm represented one of the defendants.

The majority agreed, saying that under current law, motorists who felt they were unfairly targeted would have no recourse.

Justices Charles Canady, Ricky Polston and Jorge LaBarga dissented, arguing that lawmakers in 2006 specifically removed the arrest requirement from DHSMV review. Given such deliberate action, Canady said the court was bound to follow the Legislature’s lead. The majority in this case did not.

“A more direct abrogation of legislative intent is hard to imagine,” Canady wrote.

Ann Nucatola, DHSMV spokeswoman, said the agency will now have to decide whether the underlying arrest was valid.

Before the ruling, “whatever happened on the criminal side we had nothing to do with,” Nucatola said. “We did not have to verify that the stop was legal.”