Tim v. State

553 So. 2d 370, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2834, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6850, 1989 WL 147940
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 8, 1989
DocketNo. 87-00250
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 553 So. 2d 370 (Tim 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.

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

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

Related

Gesell v. State
751 So. 2d 104 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
In Re Order on Prosecution of Cr. App.
561 So. 2d 1130 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
553 So. 2d 370, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2834, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6850, 1989 WL 147940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tim-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.