State v. Taylor

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Taylor

879 So. 2d 677, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11723, 2004 WL 1779047

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-819

StatusPublished

This text of 879 So. 2d 677 (State v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, 879 So. 2d 677, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11723, 2004 WL 1779047 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order suppressing appellant’s confession, which was obtained after detectives, in executing a search warrant of an apartment, handcuffed appellant and read him his Miranda, rights. The trial court concluded that appellant was illegally seized and suppressed his statement. The state’s argument on appeal is that the seizure of appellant was lawful because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he was engaged in the unlawful activities on the premises for which the search warrant was issued. See Samuel v. State, 222 So.2d 3, 5 (Fla.1969). That is a factual determination, and we agree with the trial court that, without considering the admissions made in' the confession, the state failed to produce evidence tending to show that appellant was engaged in any illegal conduct on the premises. As there was no break in the causal chain from appellant’s seizure to his confession, the trial court correptly suppressed the confession. See Adams v. State, 830 So.2d 911, 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order suppressing appellant’s confession, which was obtained after detectives, in executing a search warrant of an apartment, handcuffed appellant and read him his Miranda, rights. The trial court concluded that appellant was illegally seized and suppressed his statement. The state’s argument on appeal is that the seizure of appellant was lawful because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he was engaged in the unlawful activities on the premises for which the search warrant was issued. See Samuel v. State, 222 So.2d 3, 5 (Fla.1969). That is a factual determination, and we agree with the trial court that, without considering the admissions made in' the confession, the state failed to produce evidence tending to show that appellant was engaged in any illegal conduct on the premises. As there was no break in the causal chain from appellant’s seizure to his confession, the trial court correptly suppressed the confession. See Adams v. State, 830 So.2d 911, 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

879 So. 2d 677, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11723, 2004 WL 1779047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-taylor-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack