State v. Perez

491 So. 2d 339, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1595, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11520
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Perez. Read the opinion of the Court — 438 So. 2d 436
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 22, 1986·No. Nos. 85-2802, 85-2804·Published

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

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

491 So. 2d 339 (State v. Perez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)