State v. Perez
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.
Opinion
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.