State v. Jones

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Jones

138 So. 3d 1227, 2014 WL 2501231, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8554

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-4261

StatusPublished

This text of 138 So. 3d 1227 (State v. Jones) 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. Jones, 138 So. 3d 1227, 2014 WL 2501231, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8554 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On direct appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s order on a motion to suppress to the extent that the order granted Blake Jones’ request to suppress his statements. On cross-appeal, Jones challenges the trial court’s order on the motion to suppress to the extent that the order denied his request to suppress all physical evidence recovered. We hold that the trial court erred in partially denying Jones’ motion to suppress because the statements were made and the physical evidence was gathered after an illegal detention that occurred at the beginning of the stop. See Neeley v. State, 112 So.3d 764, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Johnson v. State, 995 So.2d 1011, 1013-14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Leroy v. State, 982 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a seizure occurs when, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would not believe that he was free to leave). We, therefore, reverse [1228]*1228the trial court’s order to the extent that it denied the motion to suppress the physical evidence; we affirm the portion of the order that granted the motion to suppress the statements; and we remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED.CJ1

ROWE, MARSTILLER, and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

On direct appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s order on a motion to suppress to the extent that the order granted Blake Jones’ request to suppress his statements. On cross-appeal, Jones challenges the trial court’s order on the motion to suppress to the extent that the order denied his request to suppress all physical evidence recovered. We hold that the trial court erred in partially denying Jones’ motion to suppress because the statements were made and the physical evidence was gathered after an illegal detention that occurred at the beginning of the stop. See Neeley v. State, 112 So.3d 764, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Johnson v. State, 995 So.2d 1011, 1013-14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Leroy v. State, 982 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a seizure occurs when, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would not believe that he was free to leave). We, therefore, reverse [1228]*1228the trial court’s order to the extent that it denied the motion to suppress the physical evidence; we affirm the portion of the order that granted the motion to suppress the statements; and we remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED.CJ1

ROWE, MARSTILLER, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 So. 3d 1227, 2014 WL 2501231, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack