Odio v. State
This text of 692 So. 2d 293 (Odio 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
692 So. 2d 293, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4516, 1997 WL 209544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odio-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.