Labrada v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Labrada v. State

531 So. 2d 1034, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2270, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4433, 1988 WL 100904

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1224

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 531 So. 2d 1034 (Labrada 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

Labrada v. State, 531 So. 2d 1034, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2270, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4433, 1988 WL 100904 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The five appellants in this case were charged with various violations of the lottery statutes and entered pleas of nolo contendere pursuant to a negotiated agreement with the state. The appellants specifically reserved their right to appeal the trial court’s denial of their motions to suppress evidence obtained from searches of two residences. The parties stipulated, and the trial court agreed, that the motions to suppress were dispositive of the case. The gravamen of the appeal concerns the alleged deficiency of the affidavits submitted by the investigating police officers m support of their application for search warrants. The appellants claim that the affidavits failed to provide the requisite probable cause to support the trial court’s issuance of the search warrants. Having carefully reviewed each of the lengthy, detailed affidavits, we conclude that they satisfy the standard established by this court in Machado v. State, 363 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 459 (Fla.1979). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motions to suppress and affirm the convictions and sentences entered upon the appellants’ pleas. Our finding that the trial court correctly denied the motions to suppress on the merits obviates the need for us to address appellants’ alternative argument that the good faith exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), does not pertain to this case.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

The five appellants in this case were charged with various violations of the lottery statutes and entered pleas of nolo contendere pursuant to a negotiated agreement with the state. The appellants specifically reserved their right to appeal the trial court’s denial of their motions to suppress evidence obtained from searches of two residences. The parties stipulated, and the trial court agreed, that the motions to suppress were dispositive of the case. The gravamen of the appeal concerns the alleged deficiency of the affidavits submitted by the investigating police officers m support of their application for search warrants. The appellants claim that the affidavits failed to provide the requisite probable cause to support the trial court’s issuance of the search warrants. Having carefully reviewed each of the lengthy, detailed affidavits, we conclude that they satisfy the standard established by this court in Machado v. State, 363 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 459 (Fla.1979). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motions to suppress and affirm the convictions and sentences entered upon the appellants’ pleas. Our finding that the trial court correctly denied the motions to suppress on the merits obviates the need for us to address appellants’ alternative argument that the good faith exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), does not pertain to this case.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

531 So. 2d 1034, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2270, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4433, 1988 WL 100904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/labrada-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack