State v. Sheffield

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Sheffield

623 So. 2d 469, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 432, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1157, 1993 WL 241024

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 1, 1993

DocketNo. 80202

StatusPublished

This text of 623 So. 2d 469 (State v. Sheffield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Sheffield, 623 So. 2d 469, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 432, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1157, 1993 WL 241024 (Fla. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Sheffield v. State, 599 So.2d 1057, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the same question that it certified in Williams v. State, 593 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In Williams, the court certified the following question:

DOES THE SOURCE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL TO CONDUCT REVERSE STINGS CONSTITUTIONALLY SHIELD THOSE WHO BECOME ILLICITLY INVOLVED WITH SUCH DRUGS FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY?

593 So.2d at 1064. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.

We addressed this issue in State v. Williams, 623 So.2d 462 (Fla.1993), where we held

that the illegal manufacture of crack cocaine by law enforcement officials for use in a reverse-sting operation within 1000 feet of a school constitutes governmental misconduct which violates the due process clause of the Florida Constitution.

623 So.2d at 463. Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court below.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. McDONALD, J., dissents.

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