R.R. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.R. v. State

702 So. 2d 1382, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 193, 1998 WL 10865

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 14, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1314

StatusPublished

This text of 702 So. 2d 1382 (R.R. 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.

Bluebook

R.R. v. State, 702 So. 2d 1382, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 193, 1998 WL 10865 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The juvenile appellant argues, the state candidly confesses, and we agree that the drugs found on him should have been suppressed because his alleged consent, which was the only basis for the officer’s search of his person, was tainted by the fact that it occurred, without any intervening event, while he was unlawfully in custody after an arrest which was not based on probable cause. See Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla.1980); Scott v. State, 696 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Turner v. State, 674 So.2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Compare State v. Paul, 638 So.2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1995).

Accordingly, the order under review is reversed with directions to discharge the appellant.

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

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The juvenile appellant argues, the state candidly confesses, and we agree that the drugs found on him should have been suppressed because his alleged consent, which was the only basis for the officer’s search of his person, was tainted by the fact that it occurred, without any intervening event, while he was unlawfully in custody after an arrest which was not based on probable cause. See Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla.1980); Scott v. State, 696 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Turner v. State, 674 So.2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Compare State v. Paul, 638 So.2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1995).

Accordingly, the order under review is reversed with directions to discharge the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 1382, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 193, 1998 WL 10865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rr-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack