State v. Perez

491 So. 2d 339, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1595, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11520
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 22, 1986
DocketNos. 85-2802, 85-2804
StatusPublished

This text of 491 So. 2d 339 (State v. Perez) 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. Perez, 491 So. 2d 339, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1595, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11520 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals from an order suppressing evidence in a probation violation proceeding. We reject the state’s contention that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation violation hearings. State v. Cross, 487 So.2d 1056 (Fla.1986). We reverse the order suppressing the evidence, however, because the unrebutted evidence before the trial court established that the search of the bag was accomplished with defendant Perez’s consent. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Burke v. State, 465 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
412 U.S. 218 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Burke v. State
465 So. 2d 1337 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
State v. Cross
487 So. 2d 1056 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
491 So. 2d 339, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1595, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perez-fladistctapp-1986.