Tim v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tim v. State

553 So. 2d 370, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2834, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6850, 1989 WL 147940

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 8, 1989·No. No. 87-00250·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to our prior decision in Sotolongo v. State, 530 So.2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), in which we reversed the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence filed by appellant’s codefendant, and because the facts in both cases are indistinguishable, the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence is reversed. We reject the state’s argument that the “good faith” exception to the warrant requirement enunciated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), should apply.

LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to our prior decision in Sotolongo v. State, 530 So.2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), in which we reversed the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence filed by appellant’s codefendant, and because the facts in both cases are indistinguishable, the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence is reversed. We reject the state’s argument that the “good faith” exception to the warrant requirement enunciated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), should apply.

LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Tim v. State, 553 So. 2d 370, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2834, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6850, 1989 WL 147940 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

553 So. 2d 370 (Tim v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related