Frost v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frost v. State

92 So. 3d 323, 2012 WL 3101316, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12510

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 1, 2012

DocketNo. 4D09-3561

StatusPublished

This text of 92 So. 3d 323 (Frost 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.

Bluebook

Frost v. State, 92 So. 3d 323, 2012 WL 3101316, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12510 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

We reconsider this case based on the mandate from the Supreme Court in Frost v. State, 94 So.3d 481 (Fla.2012), to apply Harris v. State, 71 So.3d 756 (Fla.2011), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1796, 182 L.Ed.2d 615 (2012). Based on Harris, we reverse the conviction and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. The circuit court shall hold another evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, where the State may offer additional evidence in compliance with the standards adopted by the Supreme Court in Harris. If the court decides that the State has not demonstrated that there was a “reasonable basis for believing the dog to be reliable based on the totality of the circumstances” under the Harris guidelines, it should grant the motion to suppress. Id. at 758.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

STEVENSON, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

We reconsider this case based on the mandate from the Supreme Court in Frost v. State, 94 So.3d 481 (Fla.2012), to apply Harris v. State, 71 So.3d 756 (Fla.2011), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1796, 182 L.Ed.2d 615 (2012). Based on Harris, we reverse the conviction and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. The circuit court shall hold another evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, where the State may offer additional evidence in compliance with the standards adopted by the Supreme Court in Harris. If the court decides that the State has not demonstrated that there was a “reasonable basis for believing the dog to be reliable based on the totality of the circumstances” under the Harris guidelines, it should grant the motion to suppress. Id. at 758.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

STEVENSON, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 3d 323, 2012 WL 3101316, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frost-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack