Cases from cite.case.law:

PENALVER, v. STATE, 926 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2006)

. . . Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 109 S.Ct. 594, 102 L.Ed.2d 624 (1989); § 901.24, Fla. . . .

SMALLRIDGE, v. STATE, 904 So. 2d 601 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See § 901.24, Fla. Stat. (2001). . . .

GERARD v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, 40 Fla. Supp. 2d 41 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . Yet, Section 901.24 Fla. . . . Hoch supra tries to sidestep 901.24 Fla. . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v SCHNEIDER STATE OF FLORIDA v HERNANDEZ, 32 Fla. Supp. 2d 49 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . Statute 901.24 mandating that the police permit, if requested, a brief recess prior to the breath test . . . Stat. 901.24 and found a right to counsel existed) and virtually state it was “no longer good law.” . . . Statute 901.24, which provides, “a person arrest shall be allowed to consult with an attorney . . . alone . . . Statute 901.24. If not, the legislature would have so indicated. . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. STURNEY, 31 Fla. Supp. 2d 151 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1988)

. . . He cited FS § 901.24; State of Florida v Carlin, 15 Fla. . . . The Hoch decision also clearly holds that such an accused person’s rights under FS § 901.24, and under . . . The most definitive and complete case in the State of Florida, dealing with rights under FS § 901.24, . . . In Hoch, it was clearly ruled that the rights of an accused under FS § 901.24, and under the Fifth, Sixth . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. COLON, 23 Fla. Supp. 2d 65 (Palm Beach Cty. Ct. 1987)

. . . lawyer violated his right to counsel under the Florida and United States Constitutions and section 901.24 . . . under the Fifth or Sixth Amendments, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or section 901.24 . . .

NELSON, v. STATE, 508 So. 2d 48 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . the Florida Constitution, the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, nor section 901.24 . . .

STATE v. HOCH,, 500 So. 2d 597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . moved to suppress the breath test results, contending that the test was taken in violation of section 901.24 . . . —Section 901.24, Florida Statutes (1983). . . . No reference was made to section 901.24, although the statute was then in existence. In Cox v. . . . Once again, no reference was made to section 901.24, although the statute was in existence. . . . Section 901.24 was enacted prior to our implied consent statute. . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. BRICE, 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 191 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1986)

. . . Section 901.24, F.S., provides as follows: “A person arrested shall be allowed to consult any attorney . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. CARLIN, 15 Fla. Supp. 2d 71 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1986)

. . . opportunity to consult with one, she did not have the right of such consultation under the mandate of F.S. 901.24 . . . Florida Statute 901.24 provides, in its entirety: “A person arrested shall be allowed to consult with . . . Florida Statute 901.24, by its express language, recognizes that there may be times when the delay of . . . out and investigated in a reasonable manner; such philosophy is found in the last three words of F.S. 901.24 . . . F.S. 901.24 mandates that an arrested person shall have a reasonable opportunity to consult with an attorney . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. GARCIA, 14 Fla. Supp. 2d 24 (Monroe Cty. Ct. 1985)

. . . This Court holds that under Florida Statute section 901.24 and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and . . . Florida Statute section 901.24 suggests that a defendant in custody should be given a chance to consult . . . Florida Statute section 901.24 in its entirety reads: “901.24 — A person arrested shall be allowed to . . . The Court notes that Florida Statute 901.24 does not require that the defendant be advised of his right . . . Florida Statute 901.24 was not discussed. . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. HOCH, 11 Fla. Supp. 2d 1 (Monroe Cty. Ct. 1985)

. . . This Court further holds that under Florida Statute section 901.24 and the Due Process Clauses of the . . . First of all, Florida Statute section 901.24 suggests that a defendant should be given a chance to consult . . . Florida Statute section 901.24 in its entirety reads: “901.24 — A person arrested shall be allowed to . . . The Court notes that Florida Statute 901.24 does not require that the defendant be advised of his right . . . Florida Statute 901.24 was not discussed. . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. BLUE, 9 Fla. Supp. 2d 3 (Fla. Cty. Ct. 1985)

. . . The right to counsel as provided in Florida Statutes 901.24 states: “A person arrested shall be allowed . . . Florida Statutes 901.24 obviously contemplates a defendant in jail or other secure location with no degree . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. JOHNSON, 8 Fla. Supp. 2d 116 (Fla. Cty. Ct. 1984)

. . . The requirements of the 4th, 5 th, 6th and 14th Amendments as well as F.S. 901.24 do not require the . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. DAVANT, 6 Fla. Supp. 2d 194 (Broward Cty. Ct. 1984)

. . . with an attorney licensed to practice law in this State as specifically provided in Florida Statute 901.24 . . . of Florida, in its comments to the Court, conceded that the specific provisions of Florida Statute 901.24 . . . In an attempt to consider the logic and application of Florida Statute 901.24, it is helpful to consider . . . This court, then, construes the intent of the legislature in the enactment of Florida Statute 901.24 . . . Pursuant to FS. 901.24 this Court specifically finds that should a Defendant request to speak with an . . .

HOFF v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 6 Fla. Supp. 2d 79 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1983)

. . . S. 901.24 requires that one be permitted to consult with an attorney prior to taking a breathalyzer test . . .

STATE v. ROCHE,, 1 Fla. Supp. 2d 189 (Orange Cty. Cir. Ct. 1981)

. . . consult” counsel.” and in part upon an attempted reconciliation of the Implied Consent law with Section 901.24 . . . The Implied Consent law as compared with Section 901.24 is a relatively recent creation and we in the . . .

STATE v. ROCHE STATE v. HALL STATE v. VATALARO, 1 Fla. Supp. 2d 171 (Orange Cty. Cir. Ct. 1980)

. . . Stat. 901.24. . . . STAT. 901.24. Fla. . . . Stat. 901.24, have permitted an accused to call an attorney prior to taking a breathalyzer. . . . Stat. 901.24 on the Implied Consent statute. In State v. Oliver, 47 Fla. . . . Stat. 901.24 was not applicable. . . .

STATE v. OLIVER STATE v. OLIVER, 47 Fla. Supp. 111 (Palm Beach Cty. Ct. 1976)

. . . Section 901.24, Florida Statutes; Hunter v. Dorius, 458 Pacific 2d 877 (Utah 1969); Rusho v. . . .

STATE v. BURTS, 24 Fla. Supp. 88 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1964)

. . . Florida Statute 901.24 provides — “Any attorney at law entitled to practice in the courts of this state . . .

ERNEST DAUGHERTY v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 154 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1944)

. . . Section 901.24, Fla. . . .