Judge Enters Written Order in Kruse DUI Case

MANATEE COUNTY – Last week, the judge presiding over the case, State of Florida vs. defendant George Kruse, issued an order ruling on the defense’s request to toss statements recorded by a deputy’s body camera the evening of the now infamous traffic incident. Kruse is accused of driving while intoxicated at the time of a single-vehicle crash that occurred last April.

In November, counsel for Kruse entered a motion to suppress evidence, requesting that the court rule to exclude bodycam audio and video that included statements Kruse made to an MCSO lieutenant following the accident from the admissible evidence.

In a Zoom hearing held on the afternoon of Jan. 18, Judge Erika Quartermaine returned her ruling after having heard arguments for and against the dismissal of evidence the day before. This week, on Jan. 23, Quartermaine entered her order in writing.

Though Quartermaine agreed with the defense that statements made by the defendant at the time of the accident could not be used against him because the responding officer never issued the defendant a Miranda warning, Quartermaine’s order also included that other content–including video–from the bodycam isadmissible in the case.

The state argued against the court’s dismissal of Kruse’s statements to police largely on the grounds that the defendant had provided a differing account of the accident to a Progressive Insurance adjuster than he did to the office the evening of the accident.

Immediately after the accident, Kruse told an officer he was cut off by another driver, causing him to "cut a curb," but then later told a representative of his car insurer that the accident was caused by him swerving to avoid an animal. The state argued that Kruse’s statements recorded on the bodycam should not be inadmissible because the law does not protect untrue statements.

In her written order, Quartermaine wrote, "The statute provides that Ôany statement’ is privileged and does not differentiate between true and untrue statements..." and "The right against self-incrimination does not depend on the veracity of the statements."

The judge’s order granted the dismissal of the audio portion of Kruse's statement but included that the video (without the referenced suppressed statements) and other non-testimonial evidence regarding the defendant in the case may be admitted during the trial.

Considering the request for the total suppression of the bodycam audio/video, Quartermaine concluded, "The privilege that section 316.066(4) confers includes testimonial evidence onlyÉTherefore, the State may introduce evidence regarding the Defendant's physical appearance, general demeanor, slurred speech, or breath scent."

Besides the statements made by Kruse to the responding officer the evening of the accident, the bodycam also captured a conversation between the commissioner’s wife and an officer. Footage shows that the responding officer advised Kruse’s wife at the scene of the accident that he believed Kruse to be impaired but was unable to investigate the incident as a DUI because there were no witnesses to the crash who could place Kruse behind the wheel at the time of the crash.

There was also a conversation between two officers at the accident scene that was recorded, wherein the first responding deputy informed the other that Kruse was a county commissioner and that it was his belief that the commissioner was intoxicated at the time of the crash.

Audio from 911 dispatch recorded after Kruse’s Ford F-150 auto-called for help has also been submitted into evidence in the case. In the recordings, Kruse’s wife can be heard telling her husband to "get out of the car" and encouraging him to get into her vehicle. When an officer first arrived at the scene, Kruse was seated in the backseat of his wife’s SUV.

A trial date for the case has been scheduled for Feb. 6, 2023, at 9 am.

Court records show the state has issued subpoenas for 11 different witnesses' testimony in the case. The subpoenas were sent to notable individuals including Kruse’s wife Jessica, local developer Carlos Beruff, whose house Kruse is alleged to have visited in the hours before the accident occurred, and Deborah Scaccianoce, the county’s public records manager.

Another subpoena was issued to an individual who provided statements to Manatee County Sheriff investigators and during deposition to the state’s attorney, alleging that they had arrived on the scene prior to Kruse’s wife.