State v. Ralston
This text of 422 So. 2d 1093 (State v. Ralston) 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
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
William Robert RALSTON, Appellee.
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Roth Ross WOOD and Ray Jackson Stroebel, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stewart J. Bellus, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Marc S. Nurik of Nurik, O'Donnell & Lazarus, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees Wood and Stroebel.
PER CURIAM.
REVERSED. See State v. Benitez, 395 So.2d 514 (Fla. 1981). We also reject the claim by appellees that Section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1979) violates their right to privacy embodied in Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution. Cf., State v. Benitez, 395 So.2d, at 519-520 (discussion of defendant's right not to be compelled to incriminate himself).
Accordingly, this cause is reversed with directions that the charges against appellees be reinstated.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
422 So. 2d 1093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ralston-fladistctapp-1982.