Criminal law — DUI manslaughter — Evidence — Statements of defendant — Suppression of body camera video shot by officer who accompanied defendant to hospital in ambulance and officers in emergency room and statements made by defendant in ambulance and emergency room is not required by Fourth Amendment of U.S. Constitution or Article I, section 23, of Florida Constitution because defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in ambulance or emergency room — No merit to argument that statements made by defendant to officers in ambulance and hospital room were result of pre-Miranda custodial interrogation where there was no behavior by officers that could reasonably have led defendant to believe that he was restrained by or in custody of police, and defendant spoke with officers willingly and voluntarily — Statements made by defendant to fire department personnel in ambulance are not privileged medical information protected by section 456.057(7)(c) or confidential patient records protected from disclosure under section 395.3025(4), which apply only to health care practitioners — Further, statutes do not protect statements made to hospital personnel in presence of police officers, statements to medical personnel that did not concern medical treatment, statements made with no medical personnel present, and statements made to officers in presence of medical personnel — Section 401.30(4), which protects records of emergency calls containing patient examination or treatment information, protects only written records and does not require suppression of statements made by defendant to officers at hospital — Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act does not prohibit patient from disclosing own medical information to third parties, as defendant did to officers — Accident report privilege does not apply to defendant’s statements where no officer ever gave defendant any indication that he was required to answer any questions or provide any information — Officer acting outside jurisdiction — Color of law doctrine does not require suppression of statements where officers did not perform any function that utilized police powers while outside their jurisdiction in ambulance and at hospital, and any exercise of extra-jurisdictional police power was authorized under mutual aid agreement — Defendant does not have standing to challenge authority of police department to act in another jurisdiction based on non-compliance with notice requirement of mutual aid agreement — Moreover, extra-jurisdictional acts of officers were permitted where subject matter of their investigation originated within their jurisdiction — Vehicle search — Where inventory search of defendant’s vehicle that led to finding his cell phone was not conducted pursuant to any standardized criteria or procedures, results of search of cell phone and any fruits of that search are suppressed — Blood draw — Medical records — No merit to argument that results of warrants for defendant’s blood and medical records should be suppressed because warrants were based in part on statements made by defendant to fire department personnel and disclosed by fire personnel to law enforcement — Statements were not privileged medical information — Moreover, other statements made by defendant to officers were sufficient to establish probable cause for warrants