Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moody v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Inevitability under this rule “involves no speculative elements” and essentially requires the State to show “ ‘that at the time of the constitutional violation an investigation was already under way.’” Moody, 842 So.2d at 759 (quoting Nix, 467 U.S. at 444, 457 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 (Stevens, J., concurring)); see also. 2015In making a case for inevitable discovery, the State must demonstrate “that at the time of the constitutional violation an investigation was already under way.” Moody[, 842 So. 2d at 759 -5- (quoting Nix, 467 U.S. 431 (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment))]; see also Jeffries v. State, 797 So. 2d 573, 578 (Fla. 2001); Maulden, 617 So. 2d at 301 . | 4 | 5 |
Fitzpatrick v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Inevitability under this rule “involves no speculative elements” and essentially requires the State to show “ ‘that at the time of the constitutional violation an investigation was already under way.’ ” Moody, 842 So. 2d at 759 (quoting Nix, 467 U.S. at 444, 457 (Stevens, J., concurring)); see also Fitzpatrick, 900 So. 2d at 514 . 2008See Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495, 514 (Fla.2005) (holding that for "inevitable discovery" exception to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine to apply, the state must demonstrate that at the time of the constitutional violation the police already possessed facts which would have led to the evidence notwithstanding the police misconduct). | 3 | 4 |
Jeffries v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In making a case for inevitable discovery, the State must demonstrate “that at the time of the constitutional violation an investigation was already under way.” Moody[, 842 So. 2d at 759 -5- (quoting Nix, 467 U.S. 431 (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment))]; see also Jeffries v. State, 797 So. 2d 573, 578 (Fla. 2001); Maulden, 617 So. 2d at 301 . 2008In making a case for inevitable discovery, the State must demonstrate “that at the time of the constitutional violation an investigation was already under way.” Moody v. State, 842 So.2d 754, 759 (Fla.2003) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 457 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment)); see also Jeffries v. State, 797 So.2d 573, 578 (Fla.2001); Maulden, 617 So.2d at 301 . | 3 | 3 |
Nix v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2015Inevitability under this rule “involves no speculative elements” and essentially requires the State to show “ ‘that at the time of the constitutional violation an investigation was already under way.’” Moody, 842 So.2d at 759 (quoting Nix, 467 U.S. at 444, 457 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 (Stevens, J., concurring)); see also. 2015Inevitability under this rule “involves no speculative elements” and essentially requires the State to show “ ‘that at the time of the constitutional violation an investigation was already under way.’” Moody, 842 So.2d at 759 (quoting Nix, 467 U.S. at 444, 457 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 (Stevens, J., concurring)); see also. | 2 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maulden v. State
green
2 sentences2015In making a case for inevitable discovery, the State must demonstrate “that at the time of the constitutional violation an investigation was already under way.” Moody[, 842 So. 2d at 759 -5- (quoting Nix, 467 U.S. 431 (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment))]; see also Jeffries v. State, 797 So. 2d 573, 578 (Fla. 2001); Maulden, 617 So. 2d at 301 . 2008In making a case for inevitable discovery, the State must demonstrate “that at the time of the constitutional violation an investigation was already under way.” Moody v. State, 842 So.2d 754, 759 (Fla.2003) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 457 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment)); see also Jeffries v. State, 797 So.2d 573, 578 (Fla.2001); Maulden, 617 So.2d at 301 . | 3 | 2005–2015 |
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.