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.
6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Griffin v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Griffin, 150 So. 3d at 291, 294 (explaining probable cause must be based solely on what is known at the point of arrest). 2017Griffin, 150 So.3d at 291, 294 (explaining probable cause must be based solely on what is known at the point of arrest). | 1 | 1 |
Moody v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Moody v. State, 842 So.2d 754, 759 (Fla.2008) (noting three exceptions to the poisonous tree doctrine: (1) an independent source would have led to the evidence; (2) the evidence would have inevitably been discovered in a legitimate investigation; and (3) sufficient attenuation existed between the illegal conduct and the discovery of the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Dozier v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Dozier v. State, 766 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Sims v. State, 743 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Wallace v. Stategreen1 sentence1993See Wallace v. State, 557 So.2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rodriguez v. United States
green
1 sentence2024At the conclusion of the evidence at the suppression hearing, the parties and the trial court discussed, at length, Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (holding that an officer may direct a driver to exit a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop for officer safety), and Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (holding that a lawful traffic stop may not be prolonged to conduct a dog sniff sweep after the traffic citation has been issued unless separately supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Pennsylvania v. Mimms
green
1 sentence2024At the conclusion of the evidence at the suppression hearing, the parties and the trial court discussed, at length, Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (holding that an officer may direct a driver to exit a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop for officer safety), and Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (holding that a lawful traffic stop may not be prolonged to conduct a dog sniff sweep after the traffic citation has been issued unless separately supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sims v. State
green
1 sentence2002See Dozier v. State, 766 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Sims v. State, 743 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Pirri v. State
neutral
1 sentence1988Moorehead v. State, 378 So.2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); [14] Pirri v. State, 428 So.2d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., State v. Pirri, 438 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1983). [15] Furthermore, the trial court erred as a matter of law by using an incorrect standard for viewing the evidence at the suppression hearing which greatly reduced the burden of proof the State was required to shoulder. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Moorehead v. State
neutral
1 sentence1988Moorehead v. State, 378 So.2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); [14] Pirri v. State, 428 So.2d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., State v. Pirri, 438 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1983). [15] Furthermore, the trial court erred as a matter of law by using an incorrect standard for viewing the evidence at the suppression hearing which greatly reduced the burden of proof the State was required to shoulder. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.