Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in Florida

1996Id. at 354 (citing One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 , 85 S.Ct. 1246 , 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965); In re Forfeiture of a 1981 Ford Automobile, 432 So.2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and In re Forfeiture of 1972 Porsche, 307 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)).

1996Id. at 354 (citing One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 , 85 S.Ct. 1246 , 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965); In re Forfeiture of a 1981 Ford Automobile, 432 So.2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and In re Forfeiture of 1972 Porsche, 307 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)).

1996Id. at 354 (citing One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 , 85 S.Ct. 1246 , 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965); In re Forfeiture of a 1981 Ford Automobile, 432 So.2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and In re Forfeiture of 1972 Porsche, 307 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)).

1988One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 , 85 S.Ct. 1246 , 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965); In re Forfeiture of 1981 Ford Automobile, 432 So.2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and In re Forfeiture of 1972 Porsche, 307 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

1996Id. at 354 (citing One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 , 85 S.Ct. 1246 , 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965); In re Forfeiture of a 1981 Ford Automobile, 432 So.2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and In re Forfeiture of 1972 Porsche, 307 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)).

1988One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 , 85 S.Ct. 1246 , 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965); In re Forfeiture of 1981 Ford Automobile, 432 So.2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and In re Forfeiture of 1972 Porsche, 307 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

2001By its terms the Rutherford opinion invokes the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule so as to exclude the hospital records from use at trial. 707 So.2d at 1132 .

1996In the case of In re Forfeiture of $62,200 in U.S., 531 So.2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the court noted that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is applicable in forfeiture proceedings.

1996Id. at 354 (citing One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 , 85 S.Ct. 1246 , 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965); In re Forfeiture of a 1981 Ford Automobile, 432 So.2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and In re Forfeiture of 1972 Porsche, 307 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)).

1995See State v. Thomas, 405 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. dismissed, 419 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 1982); Rector v. State, 532 So.2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

1995See Berry v. State, 547 So.2d 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Von Horn v. State, 334 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1977); Hill v. State, 223 So.2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). (4) The defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when he was subjected to custodial interrogation beginning at approximately 10:15 P.M. on May 3, 1991, after the defen dant failed an agreed-to polygraph examination, which seizure was entirely reasonable as it was based on probable cause, so that none of the defendant’s subsequent oral or written statements were suppressible unde

1995See Berry v. State, 547 So.2d 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Von Horn v. State, 334 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1977); Hill v. State, 223 So.2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). (4) The defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when he was subjected to custodial interrogation beginning at approximately 10:15 P.M. on May 3, 1991, after the defen dant failed an agreed-to polygraph examination, which seizure was entirely reasonable as it was based on probable cause, so that none of the defendant’s subsequent oral or written statements were suppressible unde

1985However, in view of the United States Supreme Court's recent curtailment of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and its unequivocal assertion that the rule is not constitutionally required, but rather is a judicial remedy designed to deter police misconduct, see United States v. Leon, ____ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), together with its past observation that a probationer is not entitled to the full panoply of procedural rights guaranteed to a defendant in a criminal prosecution, see Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), we believe th

1985However, in view of the United States Supreme Court's recent curtailment of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and its unequivocal assertion that the rule is not constitutionally required, but rather is a judicial remedy designed to deter police misconduct, see United States v. Leon, ____ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), together with its past observation that a probationer is not entitled to the full panoply of procedural rights guaranteed to a defendant in a criminal prosecution, see Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), we believe th

1982At least one federal court has been inclined to engage in this retreat, United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981).

1982At least one federal court has been inclined to engage in this retreat, United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981).

1982At least one federal court has been inclined to engage in this retreat, United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981).

1982At least one federal court has been inclined to engage in this retreat, United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981).

1981This issue is not *464 controlled by Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 , 99 S.Ct. 2248 , 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979) and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), cited by the defendant, because, unlike those cases, Thomas' arrest, supported as it was by probable cause, was not itself improper, and there is therefore no suggestion that it was undertaken as a subterfuge or for the purpose of securing a confession in a custodial atmosphere.

1981This issue is not *464 controlled by Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 , 99 S.Ct. 2248 , 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979) and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), cited by the defendant, because, unlike those cases, Thomas' arrest, supported as it was by probable cause, was not itself improper, and there is therefore no suggestion that it was undertaken as a subterfuge or for the purpose of securing a confession in a custodial atmosphere.

1981Taylor v. State, 355 So.2d 180 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).

1981Once it is decided, as by Payton , that this is the case, the Florida courts are mandated to reject any evidence thus secured. [3] See Grubbs v. State, 373 So.2d 905 (Fla. 1979) (exclusionary rule applicable in probation proceeding only because of Florida constitutional provision); see also, Odom v. State, 403 So.2d 936 (Fla. 1981) ("constitutional principle applies ... regardless of the scope of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.") We reach an opposite conclusion with respect to the confession because of the absence of a requisite logical connective link to the impropriety in the arrest

1981This issue is not *464 controlled by Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 , 99 S.Ct. 2248 , 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979) and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), cited by the defendant, because, unlike those cases, Thomas' arrest, supported as it was by probable cause, was not itself improper, and there is therefore no suggestion that it was undertaken as a subterfuge or for the purpose of securing a confession in a custodial atmosphere.

1981This issue is not *464 controlled by Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 , 99 S.Ct. 2248 , 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979) and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), cited by the defendant, because, unlike those cases, Thomas' arrest, supported as it was by probable cause, was not itself improper, and there is therefore no suggestion that it was undertaken as a subterfuge or for the purpose of securing a confession in a custodial atmosphere.

1978Although there has been some suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be altered or abolished, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (Burger, C.J., concurring, White, J. dissenting); Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (Burger, C.J., dissenting), the rule of Mapp v. Ohio, supra, remains intact.

1978Although there has been some suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be altered or abolished, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (Burger, C.J., concurring, White, J. dissenting); Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (Burger, C.J., dissenting), the rule of Mapp v. Ohio, supra, remains intact.

1978Although there has been some suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be altered or abolished, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (Burger, C.J., concurring, White, J. dissenting); Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (Burger, C.J., dissenting), the rule of Mapp v. Ohio, supra, remains intact.

1978Although there has been some suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be altered or abolished, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (Burger, C.J., concurring, White, J. dissenting); Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (Burger, C.J., dissenting), the rule of Mapp v. Ohio, supra, remains intact.