Thames v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thames v. State

2 So. 3d 1098, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1261, 2009 WL 383561

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 18, 2009·No. 3D07-2115·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

Thames v. State, 2 So. 3d 1098, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1261, 2009 WL 383561 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

2 So. 3d 1098 (Thames v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related