Cobham v. State
This text of 478 So. 2d 456 (Cobham v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record which demonstrates either that the officer in question complied with the “knock-and-announce” statutes, §§ 901.19(1), 933.09, Fla.Stat. (1983), or that any cognizable exception to the statutory requirements applied. Hence, the order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress was erroneous, State v. Navarro, 464 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (en banc), and the conviction entered upon a nolo plea which preserved the right to appellate review of that ruling is reversed with directions to discharge the defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
478 So. 2d 456, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2522, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobham-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.