State v. Carlson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Carlson

394 So. 2d 1031, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18721

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 1981

DocketNo. 80-64

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 394 So. 2d 1031 (State v. Carlson) 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

State v. Carlson, 394 So. 2d 1031, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18721 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

This is a companion case to State v. Albano, 394 So.2d 1026 (Fla.2d DCA 1981). In both cases the state appeals the trial court’s order granting appellees’ motions to suppress tangible evidence seized during a war-rantless search of their persons and a vehicle following their arrest. The facts given in State v. Albano, supra, are also the facts in the instant case except Carlson did not have copies of the application for wiretap and resulting court order, though the record indicates he was aware that a wiretap and wiretap evidence existed.

Although Carlson did not have copies of the application and order, we reverse the trial court’s disallowance of the testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress with regard to Carlson for the second reason discussed in Albano, supra, at 1030.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and OTT, J., concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

This is a companion case to State v. Albano, 394 So.2d 1026 (Fla.2d DCA 1981). In both cases the state appeals the trial court’s order granting appellees’ motions to suppress tangible evidence seized during a war-rantless search of their persons and a vehicle following their arrest. The facts given in State v. Albano, supra, are also the facts in the instant case except Carlson did not have copies of the application for wiretap and resulting court order, though the record indicates he was aware that a wiretap and wiretap evidence existed.

Although Carlson did not have copies of the application and order, we reverse the trial court’s disallowance of the testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress with regard to Carlson for the second reason discussed in Albano, supra, at 1030.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and OTT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 So. 2d 1031, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carlson-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack