Hunter v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Hunter v. State

638 So. 2d 513, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 312, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 906, 1994 WL 245639

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1994

DocketNo. 82458

StatusPublished

This text of 638 So. 2d 513 (Hunter v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hunter v. State, 638 So. 2d 513, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 312, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 906, 1994 WL 245639 (Fla. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We review State v. Hunter, 623 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The district court certified this question as one of great public importance:

WHETHER THE MANUFACTURE OF CRACK COCAINE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS FOR USE IN A REVERSE-STING OPERATION CONSTITUTES GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT WHICH VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, WHERE THE CHARGE IS SOLICITATION TO PURCHASE, I.E., WHETHER MET-CALF V. STATE, 614 S0.2D 648 (FLA. 4TH DCA 1993), IS CORRECT?

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We recently resolved this issue in Metcalf v. State, 635 So.2d 11 (Fla.1994), where we found a due process violation when police used illegally manufactured drugs in a reverse-sting operation. On authority of Met-calf we quash the decision under review. We answer the first part of the certified question in the affirmative. We answer the second part — whether Metcalf v. State, 614 So.2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), is correct — in the negative.

Given our resolution of the certified question, we decline to address the second issue Hunter raises.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. MeDONALD, Senior Justice, dissents.

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