Murphy v. State
548 So. 2d 845, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2145, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5016, 1989 WL 104045
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Murphy v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 511 So. 2d 397 →
Opinion
Defendant has appealed denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an allegedly unlawful pat-down search. Defendant pled nolo contendere to the substantive charges against him while reserving the right to appeal denial of the motion to suppress. We conclude that the case is controlled by Russell v. State, 415 So.2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 427 So.2d 737 (Fla.1983), and affirm. See also 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.4(a) (1987).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Murphy v. State, 548 So. 2d 845, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2145, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5016, 1989 WL 104045 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).
548 So. 2d 845 (Murphy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Russell v. State
415 So. 2d 797 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)