Odio v. State

692 So. 2d 293, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4516, 1997 WL 209544
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 30, 1997·No. No. 96-3002·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Whren v. United States, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); State v. Holland, 680 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), review granted, 689 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 1997); State v. Corvin, 677 So.2d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Petrel v. State, 675 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). See generally Saturnino-Boudet v. State, 682 So.2d 188, 191 n. 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(noting District Courts of Appeal’s observation that Whren has substantially altered search and seizure jurisprudence as it pertains to traffic [294]*294stops), review dismissed, 689 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1997).

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

Odio v. State, 692 So. 2d 293, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4516, 1997 WL 209544 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

692 So. 2d 293 (Odio v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whren v. United States
517 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court, 1996)
State v. Holland
680 So. 2d 1041 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Saturnino-Boudet v. State
682 So. 2d 188 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
State v. Corvin
677 So. 2d 947 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Petrel v. State
675 So. 2d 1049 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)