Hart v. State
744 So. 2d 1253, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15656, 1999 WL 1062516
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hart v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7528 →
Opinion
As we conclude from the record evidence before us that the police offer’s initial encounter with the appellant was consensual in nature, and therefore, did not intrude on any constitutionally protected interests under the fourth amendment. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185 (Fla.1993); Saturnino-Boudet v. State, 682 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress his statements was not erroneous.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hart v. State, 744 So. 2d 1253, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15656, 1999 WL 1062516 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).
744 So. 2d 1253 (Hart v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Florida v. Royer
460 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Saturnino-Boudet v. State
682 So. 2d 188 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Popple v. State
626 So. 2d 185 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)