source doctrine in Florida

2009Under the independent source doctrine, evidence is admissible if the State can show that it was obtained by “means wholly independent of any constitutional violation.” Nix, 467 U.S. at 443 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 .

2009Under the independent source doctrine, evidence is admissible if the State can show that it was obtained by “means wholly independent of any constitutional violation.” Nix, 467 U.S. at 443 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 .

2026That is, rule 3.850 movants are permitted to amend defective pleadings “only if they can be amended in good faith.” Spera, 971 So. 2d at 762 . 2 This Court has mentioned this rule of law, but only when reversing an 2 The Spera court relied on its earlier decision in Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2005), where it held that a death- sentenced postconviction movant should have been given the opportunity to amend a facially insufficient postconviction claim.

2012If that order had granted Mr. Williams an opportunity to amend his first ground pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), perhaps this reversal could have been avoided.

2019The independent source rule "applies when evidence is discovered as a result of unlawful police activity but is also *260 discovered independently through a lawful investigation that occurs either before or after the illegal activity, so long as the independent investigation itself is 'untainted by the initial activity.' " Id. at 65 (quoting Jackson v. State , 1 So.3d 273 , 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ).

2019The independent source rule "applies when evidence is discovered as a result of unlawful police activity but is also *260 discovered independently through a lawful investigation that occurs either before or after the illegal activity, so long as the independent investigation itself is 'untainted by the initial activity.' " Id. at 65 (quoting Jackson v. State , 1 So.3d 273 , 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ).

2019Nix , 467 U.S. at 443 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . "[T]he 'exclusionary rule' has no application where the government can show it has learned of the challenged evidence from an 'independent source.' The rule applies where the illegal search or seizure was not an actual cause of the discovery of the subject evidence." State v. Ojeda , 147 So.3d 53 , 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

2019Nix , 467 U.S. at 443 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . "[T]he 'exclusionary rule' has no application where the government can show it has learned of the challenged evidence from an 'independent source.' The rule applies where the illegal search or seizure was not an actual cause of the discovery of the subject evidence." State v. Ojeda , 147 So.3d 53 , 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

1984The source of this requirement is apparently the much criticized opinion by Justice Holmes in United Zinc & Chemical Company v. Britt, 258 U.S. 268 , 42 S.Ct. 299 , 66 L.Ed. 615 (1921). 1 However, we should not read this requirement so literally that we abolish application of the attractive nuisance doctrine to concealed dangers operating in connection with conditions or other objects on property, which jointly contribute to the child’s injury.

1984The source of this requirement is apparently the much criticized opinion by Justice Holmes in United Zinc & Chemical Company v. Britt, 258 U.S. 268 , 42 S.Ct. 299 , 66 L.Ed. 615 (1921). 1 However, we should not read this requirement so literally that we abolish application of the attractive nuisance doctrine to concealed dangers operating in connection with conditions or other objects on property, which jointly contribute to the child’s injury.

1984Nix v. Williams, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920).

1984Nix v. Williams, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920).

2026That is, rule 3.850 movants are permitted to amend defective pleadings “only if they can be amended in good faith.” Spera, 971 So. 2d at 762 . 2 This Court has mentioned this rule of law, but only when reversing an 2 The Spera court relied on its earlier decision in Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2005), where it held that a death- sentenced postconviction movant should have been given the opportunity to amend a facially insufficient postconviction claim.

2023However, “[t]he ‘exclusionary rule’ has no application where the government can show it has learned of the challenged evidence from an ‘independent source.’ The rule applies where the illegal search or seizure was not an actual cause of the discovery of the subject evidence.” O’Hare v. State, 263 So. 3d 255 , 259–60 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (citation omitted). 10 The independent source doctrine 4 “applies when evidence is discovered as a result of unlawful police activity but is also discovered independently through a lawful investigation that occurs either before or after the illegal activity, so

2023However, “[t]he ‘exclusionary rule’ has no application where the government can show it has learned of the challenged evidence from an ‘independent source.’ The rule applies where the illegal search or seizure was not an actual cause of the discovery of the subject evidence.” O’Hare v. State, 263 So. 3d 255 , 259–60 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (citation omitted). 10 The independent source doctrine 4 “applies when evidence is discovered as a result of unlawful police activity but is also discovered independently through a lawful investigation that occurs either before or after the illegal activity, so

2023Therefore, we set the record straight in Brown, explaining: [W]e clarify Samuels and hold that the specific statute number is unnecessary where, as here, the defendant has had notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the court’s oral pronouncement and written order are specific enough to place the parties and the reviewing court on notice of the statutory authority for the assessment. 3 Cf. T.D.S., 45 So. 3d at 18 (“The source of the requirement that a cost assessment in a criminal proceeding contain a reference to the statutory authority is not directly found in a statute or a rule of proce

2014For example, in State v. Mosier, 392 So.2d 602 (Fla. Bd DCA 1981), we concluded that a search by plain clothes detectives of a suitcase checked by Mosier at a Continental Airlines ticket counter was lawful, despite the fact Mosier had earlier refused them permission to search the suitcase during the course of an illegal Terry stop. 6 Mosier, 392 So.2d at 604 .

2014For example, in State v. Mosier, 392 So.2d 602 (Fla. Bd DCA 1981), we concluded that a search by plain clothes detectives of a suitcase checked by Mosier at a Continental Airlines ticket counter was lawful, despite the fact Mosier had earlier refused them permission to search the suitcase during the course of an illegal Terry stop. 6 Mosier, 392 So.2d at 604 .

2014State v. Griffith, 500 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), issued by this Court a few years after Mosier, provides an even more cogent example of the operation of the independent source rule.

2014State v. Griffith, 500 So.2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), issued by this Court a few years after Mosier , provides an even more cogent example of the operation of the independent source rule.

2012See Martinez v. Bally’s Louisiana, Inc., 244 F.3d 474, 477 (5th Cir.2001) (“Although a judicial admission is not itself evidence, it has the effect of withdrawing a fact from contention.”); United States v. Blood, 806 F.2d 1218 , R1221 (4th Cir.1986) (“Generally, statements by an attorney concerning a matter within his employment may be admissible against the retaining client.

2010At least to a large extent, this requirement can be traced to the en banc decision of this court in Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) superseded, by statute, § 938.15, Fla. Stat. (1997), on other grounds as recognized in Waller v. State, 911 So.2d 226, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

2002The source of the presumption of vindictiveness is North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 726 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).

2002The source of the presumption of vindictiveness is North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 726 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).

1997The case we cited to support a rule of strict construction, Venetian Cove, in turn cites Ohio Realty Investment Corp. v. Southern Bank, 300 So.2d 679 (Fla.1974), as the source of the rule.

1993We agree only because the state failed to make this argument or present the evidence to support it during the suppression hearing. [3] Whiting v. State, 595 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Mosby v. State, 575 So.2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Reed v. State, 577 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

1993We agree only because the state failed to make this argument or present the evidence to support it during the suppression hearing. [3] Whiting v. State, 595 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Mosby v. State, 575 So.2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Reed v. State, 577 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

1993We agree only because the state failed to make this argument or present the evidence to support it during the suppression hearing. [3] Whiting v. State, 595 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Mosby v. State, 575 So.2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Reed v. State, 577 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

1989See Murray, Execution Lien Creditors Versus Bona Fide Purchasers, fenders and Other Execution Lien Creditors: Charles II and the Uniform Commercial Code, 85 Comm.L.J. 485, 486-88 (1980); Accent Realty, 496 So. 2d at 162 .

1986The independent source rule was applied with similar results in United States v. Bienvenue, 632 F.2d 910 (1st Cir.1980).

1986The following statement of the law applicable where modification of a contractual right to child support is sought first appeared in Burdack v. Burdack, 371 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), is repeated in Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA), appeal dismissed, 402 So.2d 609 (Fla. 1981), and is quoted with approval in Fritz, 485 So.2d at 489 : A fundamental prerequisite to modification of child support payments is a showing of substantial change of circumstances, including financial circumstances of one or both of the parties.