Thames v. State
This text of 2 So. 3d 1098 (Thames v. State) 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.
Opinions
There was no founded suspicion, much less probable cause of wrongdoing to justify the search and seizure involved in this case. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185 (Fla.1993); J.L.H. v. State, 990 So.2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Alvarez v. City of Hialeah, 900 So.2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); State v. Taylor, 826 So.2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Because the order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress was therefore erroneous, the conviction is reversed and the cause remanded with direction to discharge the defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 So. 3d 1098, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1261, 2009 WL 383561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thames-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.