State v. Weber

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Weber

302 So. 2d 198

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 22, 1974

DocketNo. V-419

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 So. 2d 198 (State v. Weber) 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. Weber, 302 So. 2d 198 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant-appellee filed a Motion to Quash a search warrant and its supporting affidavit and to Suppress the Evidence obtained pursuant thereto. The Circuit Court heard testimony and argument of counsel and entered an order suppressing the evidence from whence the State took this Interlocutory Appeal, urging that the case is controlled by Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); and a decision of our sister court of the Third District, Fountain v. State, Fla.App. 3rd 1967, 199 So.2d 738. We have carefully examined the facts sub jud-ice and the holdings in those cases as well as our own recent opinion in Joyner v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 303 So.2d 60, and find that those holdings are not dis-positive of the issues here involved.

The appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, this Interlocutory Appeal is

Dismissed.

RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and Me-CORD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant-appellee filed a Motion to Quash a search warrant and its supporting affidavit and to Suppress the Evidence obtained pursuant thereto. The Circuit Court heard testimony and argument of counsel and entered an order suppressing the evidence from whence the State took this Interlocutory Appeal, urging that the case is controlled by Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); and a decision of our sister court of the Third District, Fountain v. State, Fla.App. 3rd 1967, 199 So.2d 738. We have carefully examined the facts sub jud-ice and the holdings in those cases as well as our own recent opinion in Joyner v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 303 So.2d 60, and find that those holdings are not dis-positive of the issues here involved.

The appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, this Interlocutory Appeal is

Dismissed.

RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and Me-CORD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 So. 2d 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weber-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack