Koran v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Koran v. State

219 So. 2d 449, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6174

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 1969

DocketNo. 1835

StatusPublished

This text of 219 So. 2d 449 (Koran 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

Koran v. State, 219 So. 2d 449, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6174 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The record discloses that defendant was sufficiently informed of his constitutional rights after being taken into custody and prior to interrogation, and that the defendant freely and intelligently gave unequivocal and specific consent to the search of his premises. The evidence obtained through such interrogation and search was properly admissible. The tape recording evidence obtained from the use of electronic transmitting and recording devices was not obtained in violation of any of defendant’s constitutional rights nor was such evidence obtained in violation of any state or federal statute, and was therefore properly admitted. Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Lopez v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462; Rathbun v. United States, 1957, 355 U.S. 107, 78 S.Ct. 161, 2 L.Ed.2d 134; On Lee v. United State, 1952, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270; Koran v. State, Fla. App.1968, 213 So.2d 735; Hajdu v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 230; Barber v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 857; Gomien v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 511.

WALDEN, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The record discloses that defendant was sufficiently informed of his constitutional rights after being taken into custody and prior to interrogation, and that the defendant freely and intelligently gave unequivocal and specific consent to the search of his premises. The evidence obtained through such interrogation and search was properly admissible. The tape recording evidence obtained from the use of electronic transmitting and recording devices was not obtained in violation of any of defendant’s constitutional rights nor was such evidence obtained in violation of any state or federal statute, and was therefore properly admitted. Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Lopez v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462; Rathbun v. United States, 1957, 355 U.S. 107, 78 S.Ct. 161, 2 L.Ed.2d 134; On Lee v. United State, 1952, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270; Koran v. State, Fla. App.1968, 213 So.2d 735; Hajdu v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 230; Barber v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 857; Gomien v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 511.

WALDEN, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 2d 449, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koran-v-state-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack