12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lavazzoligreen2 sentences1988The district court applied our recent decision in State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1983), interpreting the new constitutional provision as linking Florida's exclusionary rule to the federal exclusionary rule and determined that United States v. Leon, , 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), and Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984), were applicable. 1988The new amendment, however, links Florida's exclusionary rule to the federal exclusionary rule, making it also nothing more than a creature of judicial decisional policy and removing the "independent protective force of state law." 434 So.2d 321, 323-24 (Fla. 1983) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). | 2 | 4 |
Bernie v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988, 990-91 (Fla.1988); see also Perez v. State, 620 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1993) (reaffirming the court's earlier position in Bernie , and recognizing that by reason of the 1982 amendment to article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, the Florida Supreme Court was bound by the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment). 2008Ber nie v. State, 524 So.2d 988, 990-91 (Fla.1988); see also Perez v. State, 620 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1993) (reaffirming the court’s earlier position in Bemie, and recognizing that by reason of the 1982 amendment to article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, the Florida Supreme Court was bound by the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment). | 2 | 2 |
Perez v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988, 990-91 (Fla.1988); see also Perez v. State, 620 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1993) (reaffirming the court's earlier position in Bernie , and recognizing that by reason of the 1982 amendment to article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, the Florida Supreme Court was bound by the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment). 2008Ber nie v. State, 524 So.2d 988, 990-91 (Fla.1988); see also Perez v. State, 620 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1993) (reaffirming the court’s earlier position in Bemie, and recognizing that by reason of the 1982 amendment to article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, the Florida Supreme Court was bound by the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences1988The district court applied our recent decision in State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1983), interpreting the new constitutional provision as linking Florida's exclusionary rule to the federal exclusionary rule and determined that United States v. Leon, , 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), and Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984), were applicable. 1988The district court applied our recent decision in State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1983), interpreting the new constitutional provision as linking Florida's exclusionary rule to the federal exclusionary rule and determined that United States v. Leon, , 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), and Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984), were applicable. | 1 | 2 |
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scottgreen2 sentences1999See Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 , 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998)("the federal exclusionary rule does not bar the introduction at parole revocation hearings of evidence seized in violation of parolees' Fourth Amendment rights"). 1999See Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 , 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998)("the federal exclusionary rule does not bar the introduction at parole revocation hearings of evidence seized in violation of parolees' Fourth Amendment rights"). | 1 | 2 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2014“Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case ... is ‘an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.’ ” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 223 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). 2014“Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case . . . is ‘an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.’ ” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 (1984) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 223 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Mapp v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2014“Under the exclusionary rule announced by the United States Supreme Court, ‘the Fourth Amendment bar[s] the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure.’ ” Hilton, 961 So.2d at 298 (alteration in original) (quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 648 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (holding that the federal exclusionary rule applies to the states as well)). 2014“Under the exclusionary rule announced by the United States Supreme Court, ‘the Fourth Amendment bar[s] the use of evidence secured through an - 15 - illegal search and seizure.’ ” Hilton, 961 So. 2d at 293 (alteration in original) (quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 648 (1961) (holding that the federal exclusionary rule applies to the states as well)). | 1 | 1 |
Hilton v. Stategreen2 sentences2014“Under the exclusionary rule announced by the United States Supreme Court, ‘the Fourth Amendment bar[s] the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure.’ ” Hilton, 961 So.2d at 298 (alteration in original) (quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 648 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (holding that the federal exclusionary rule applies to the states as well)). 2014“Under the exclusionary rule announced by the United States Supreme Court, ‘the Fourth Amendment bar[s] the use of evidence secured through an - 15 - illegal search and seizure.’ ” Hilton, 961 So. 2d at 293 (alteration in original) (quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 648 (1961) (holding that the federal exclusionary rule applies to the states as well)). | 1 | 1 |
Myers v. Hawkinsgreen1 sentence1983See Myers v. Hawkins, 362 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1978); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dodd
green
2 sentences1988As was noted in Dodd , the difference is that while our exclusionary rule is "constitutionally mandated," the federal rule is "a creature of judicial decisional policy." Dodd, 419 So.2d at 335 . 1985As we noted in [ State v. ] Dodd, [ 419 So.2d 333 (Fla. 1982)], the difference is that while our exclusionary rule is "constitutionally mandated," the federal rule is "a creature of judicial decisional policy." Dodd, 419 So.2d at 335 . | 3 | 1983–1988 |
State v. Bernie
green
1 sentence1988The district court concluded that the "exclusion of the cocaine would be improper because `there is no police illegality and thus nothing to deter.'" Bernie, 472 So.2d at 1247 , quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 921 , 104 S.Ct. at 3419 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Massachusetts v. Sheppard
green
2 sentences1988The district court applied our recent decision in State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1983), interpreting the new constitutional provision as linking Florida's exclusionary rule to the federal exclusionary rule and determined that United States v. Leon, , 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), and Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984), were applicable. 1988The district court applied our recent decision in State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1983), interpreting the new constitutional provision as linking Florida's exclusionary rule to the federal exclusionary rule and determined that United States v. Leon, , 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), and Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984), were applicable. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
McClendon v. State
green
1 sentence1986McClendon v. State, 476 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Alderman v. United States
green
2 sentences1981That construction of the federal exclusionary rule was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). 1981That construction of the federal exclusionary rule was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Gildrie v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences1978Gildrie v. State, 94 Fla. 134 , 113 So. 704 (1927). 1978Gildrie v. State, 94 Fla. 134 , 113 So. 704 (1927). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.