Pina v. State
473 So. 2d 736
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 12, 1985·No. Nos. 84-1487 to 84-1489·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
We reverse the appellant’s convictions and sentences on the authority of Horvitz v. State, 433 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) and Tamer v. State, 463 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The trial court erred in failing to grant the motion to suppress. We also certify the following question posed in Tamer as one of great public importance:
Under the 1983 amendment to article 1, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, does the exclusionary rule apply in probation revocation hearings?
Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accord herewith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pina v. State, 473 So. 2d 736 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).
473 So. 2d 736 (Pina v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
American Samoa Government v. Samana
8 Am. Samoa 2d 1 (High Court of American Samoa, 1988)
State v. Pina
487 So. 2d 1055 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Julian v. Lee
473 So. 2d 736 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)