Pierce v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pierce v. State

396 So. 2d 858, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19201

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 14, 1981·No. No. 80-49·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant’s motel room because the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant had vacated the premises and that the landlord’s consent to search removed the requirement that a search warrant be obtained. Furthermore, the issue raised on appeal following defendant’s plea of no contest does not appear to be dispositive. Brown v. State, 355 So.2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), approved, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979).

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

BASKIN, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant’s motel room because the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant had vacated the premises and that the landlord’s consent to search removed the requirement that a search warrant be obtained. Furthermore, the issue raised on appeal following defendant’s plea of no contest does not appear to be dispositive. Brown v. State, 355 So.2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), approved, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979).

Pierce v. State, 396 So. 2d 858, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19201 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

396 So. 2d 858 (Pierce v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related