Turben v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Turben v. State

761 So. 2d 1243, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8751, 2000 WL 954287

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-3809

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 761 So. 2d 1243 (Turben 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

Turben v. State, 761 So. 2d 1243, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8751, 2000 WL 954287 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged by information with driving with a suspended or revoked license and driving under the influence. Appellant moved to suppress all evidence seized following the stop, and after a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. The State then moved for clarification of the trial court’s order, whereupon the court entered an amended order finding that appellant’s identity could not be suppressed citing this court’s decision in Ware v. State, 679 So.2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), noting conflict with the Fourth District in Perkins v. State, 734 So.2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that identity is no different than other evidence that must be suppressed following an unlawful stop). The court otherwise granted suppression of all other evidence that arose after the stop.

In light of the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Perkins, 760 So.2d 85 (Fla.2000), which approved the Fourth District’s holding in Perkins, and disapproved this court’s decision in Ware and the decision in O’Neal v. State, 649 So.2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), we reverse the trial court’s amended order to the extent it denied suppression of appellant’s identity.

Reversed.

GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged by information with driving with a suspended or revoked license and driving under the influence. Appellant moved to suppress all evidence seized following the stop, and after a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. The State then moved for clarification of the trial court’s order, whereupon the court entered an amended order finding that appellant’s identity could not be suppressed citing this court’s decision in Ware v. State, 679 So.2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), noting conflict with the Fourth District in Perkins v. State, 734 So.2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that identity is no different than other evidence that must be suppressed following an unlawful stop). The court otherwise granted suppression of all other evidence that arose after the stop.

In light of the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Perkins, 760 So.2d 85 (Fla.2000), which approved the Fourth District’s holding in Perkins, and disapproved this court’s decision in Ware and the decision in O’Neal v. State, 649 So.2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), we reverse the trial court’s amended order to the extent it denied suppression of appellant’s identity.

Reversed.

GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

761 So. 2d 1243, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8751, 2000 WL 954287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turben-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack