conformity clause in Florida

2005Under Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, evidence is subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule if that evidence "would be inadmissable under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution." Under this provision of Florida's constitution—known as the conformity clause—Florida courts "are bound to follow interpretations of the United States Supreme Court with respect to the Fourth Amendment and provide to Florida citizens no greater protection than those interpretations." Soca, 673 So.2d at 27 (citing Bernie v.

1998IV, U.S. Const. In 1982, article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution was amended to add what has become known as the conformity clause because "we are bound to follow the interpretations of the United States Supreme Court with relation to the fourth amendment and provide no greater protection than those interpretations." Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988, 990-91 (Fla.1988); see Soca v. State, 673 So.2d 24, 27 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 273 , 136 L.Ed.2d 196 (1996). [4] Because Lasanta contains a comprehensive and reasoned treatment of this issue, we quote from the Second

2025I, § 12, Fla. Const.; Soca v. State, 673 So. 2d 24, 27 (Fla. 1996) (providing that in light of the Florida Constitution's conformity clause, Florida courts "are bound to follow the interpretations of the United States Supreme Court with respect to the Fourth Amendment and provide Florida Citizens no greater protection than those interpretations").

2024As such, “the Government must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring such records.” Id.; Soca v. State, 673 So. 2d 24, 27 (Fla. 1996) (“With the conformity clause amendment, we are bound to follow the interpretations of the United States Supreme Court with respect to the Fourth Amendment and provide to Florida citizens no greater protection than those interpretations.”); Tracey v. State, 152 So. 3d 504, 526 (Fla. 2014) (“Because . . . no warrant based on probable cause authorized the use of Tracey’s real time cell site location information to track him, the evi

2016I previously expressed my view that comparative proportionality review by this Court is precluded by the conformity clause in article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution, which requires this Court to interpret our state constitutional prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment in conformity with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the parallel provision of the United States Constitution, Yacob v. State, 136 So.3d 539, 557-63 (Fla.2014) (Canady, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

2015In Yacob v. State, 136 So.3d 539, 557-63 (Fla.2014) (Canady, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), I expressed the view that the exercise of proportionality review by this Court is inconsistent with the conformity clause of article 1, section 17, of the Florida Constitution.

2013See State v. Daniel, 665 So.2d 1040 , 1047 n. 10 (Fla. 1995), receded from on other grounds, Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757, 760 (Fla. 1997).

2009See Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757, 759 (Fla.1997); Brye, 927 So.2d at 80 .

2026That is because we are “bound by the conformity clause of the Florida Constitution to construe the state prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment consistently with pronouncements by the United States Supreme Court.” Id. (citing Valle v. State, 70 So. 3d 530, 538-39 (Fla. 2011)). - 15 - case that the State really can put him to death, though in a different way than it plans.” Heath v. State, 426 So. 3d 1253 , 1262 (Fla.) (quoting Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 159, 169 (2022)), cert. denied, No. 25-6746, 2026 WL 363902 (U.S. Feb. 10, 2026).

2019However, as we have explained, “this Court is bound by the conformity clause of the Florida Constitution to construe the state prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment consistently with pronouncements by the United States Supreme Court.” Correll v. State, 184 So. 3d 478, 489 (Fla. 2015); see art.

2023Under the federal Constitution, “the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause [is] made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Graham [v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 53 (2010)].

2020Under the federal Constitution, “the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause [is] made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Graham [v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 53 (2010)].

2024See Smallwood v. State, 113 So. 3d 724, 730 (Fla. 2013).

2017Smallwood v. State, 113 So. 3d 724, 730 (Fla. 2013).

2019See D.P. v. State , 65 So. 3d 123 , 129 n.6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ; Higerd v. State , 54 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

2019See D.P. v. State , 65 So. 3d 123 , 129 n.6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ; Higerd v. State , 54 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

2009See State v. Butler, 655 So.2d 1123, 1125 (Fla.1995); Huffman v. State, 937 So.2d 202, 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

2007Under the conformity clause, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" is to "be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court." Evidence seized in violation of the right guaranteed by article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution "shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States

2018Indeed, when a case is “neither factually nor legally on point . . . the conformity clause does not require Florida courts to apply [its] holding.” Id.

2018Indeed, when a case is "neither factually nor legally on point ... the conformity clause does not require Florida courts to apply [its] holding." Id.

2023Cruz argues that the conformity clause in article I, section 17 does not prohibit this Court from conducting a relative culpability review because Lawrence was exclusively premised on Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984), which held that comparative proportionality review is not constitutionally required but did not address relative culpability, and there is no direct United States Supreme Court opinion prohibiting relative culpability review under the Eighth Amendment.

2020Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 50-51 (1984) (“There is . . . no basis [in Supreme Court case law] for holding that comparative proportionality review by an appellate court is required in every case in which the death penalty is imposed and the defendant requests it.”).

2009See Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757, 759 (Fla.1997); Brye, 927 So.2d at 80 .

2006"By state constitutional mandate in the conformity clause, we are to resolve Fourth-Amendment search and seizure issues in accordance with applicable United States Supreme Court precedents." Brye v. State, 927 So.2d 78, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see Art.

2001Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757 (Fla.1997); Perez v. State, 620 So.2d 1256 (Fla.1993); Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988 (Fla.1988); Gandy; Warren.

1997We subsequently determined that the conformity clause not only binds the Florida courts to follow the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution but also to "provide no greater protection than those interpretations." Perez v. State, 620 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.1993).

2026That is because we are “bound by the conformity clause of the Florida Constitution to construe the state prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment consistently with pronouncements by the United States Supreme Court.” Id. (citing Valle v. State, 70 So. 3d 530, 538-39 (Fla. 2011)). - 15 - case that the State really can put him to death, though in a different way than it plans.” Heath v. State, 426 So. 3d 1253 , 1262 (Fla.) (quoting Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 159, 169 (2022)), cert. denied, No. 25-6746, 2026 WL 363902 (U.S. Feb. 10, 2026).

2026That is because we are “bound by the conformity clause of the Florida Constitution to construe the state prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment consistently with pronouncements by the United States Supreme Court.” Id. (citing Valle v. State, 70 So. 3d 530, 538-39 (Fla. 2011)). - 15 - case that the State really can put him to death, though in a different way than it plans.” Heath v. State, 426 So. 3d 1253 , 1262 (Fla.) (quoting Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 159, 169 (2022)), cert. denied, No. 25-6746, 2026 WL 363902 (U.S. Feb. 10, 2026).

2025Even if we assumed the deputy misinterpreted [the law], the mistake would be objectively reasonable.”) (citations omitted); I.B. v. State, 239 So. 3d 773, 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“In order to sustain a charge of resisting an officer without violence, the State must prove that the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty and that the defendant’s actions obstructed, resisted or opposed the officer in the performance of that duty.

2024Whether an officer's suspicion is reasonable must be determined from the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the investigative stop, based on the facts known to the officer before the stop. (citing C.E.L. v. State, 24 So. 3d 1181, 1186 (Fla. 2009) (additional citations omitted)).

2024As such, “the Government must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring such records.” Id.; Soca v. State, 673 So. 2d 24, 27 (Fla. 1996) (“With the conformity clause amendment, we are bound to follow the interpretations of the United States Supreme Court with respect to the Fourth Amendment and provide to Florida citizens no greater protection than those interpretations.”); Tracey v. State, 152 So. 3d 504, 526 (Fla. 2014) (“Because . . . no warrant based on probable cause authorized the use of Tracey’s real time cell site location information to track him, the evi

2023When the State is considering whether they must seek a Crain v. State, 914 So. 2d 1015, 1022-23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (en banc)). - 56 - warrant, prosecutors and the police should not have to scry a crystal ball, consult a Ouija board, or conduct a group tarot card reading to intuit the law’s metaphysical finality before making their choice.

2021As the State’s brief suggests, allowing the trial court to force a mitigation presentation upon an unwilling, competent defendant in order to avoid a potential Eighth Amendment problem, see generally Muhammad v. State, 782 So. 2d 343, 363-64 (Fla. 2001), that no United States Supreme Court decision says exists also potentially implicates the conformity clause of the Florida Constitution, see art.

2021Accordingly, we do not review the proportionality of Deviney’s sentence of death. - 11 - (quoting Fernandez v. State, 730 So. 2d 277, 281 (Fla. 1999)).

2016But because my view on the subject was expressly rejected by the majority in Yacob and because I have stated that "[u]n-til the State presents an argument justifying receding from our precedent on the subject that was clearly established in Yacob , I will follow that precedent,” Delgado v. State, 162 So.3d 971, 983 (Fla.2015) (Canady, J., concurring), I therefore do not rely on my view of the conformity clause to reach the conclusion that McCloud’s sentences should be affirmed.

2016But because my view on the subject was expressly rejected by the majority in Yacob and because I have stated that “[u]ntil the State presents an argument justifying receding from our precedent on the subject that was clearly established in Yacob, I will follow that precedent,” Delgado v. State, 162 So. 3d 971, 983 (Fla. 2015) (Canady, J., concurring), I therefore do not rely on my view of the conformity clause to reach the conclusion that McCloud’s sentences should be affirmed. - 49 - unconstitutional was its failure to require a jury finding of an aggravating circumstance.

2009See State v. Butler, 655 So.2d 1123, 1125 (Fla.1995); Huffman v. State, 937 So.2d 202, 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

2005Under Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, evidence is subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule if that evidence "would be inadmissable under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution." Under this provision of Florida's constitution—known as the conformity clause—Florida courts "are bound to follow interpretations of the United States Supreme Court with respect to the Fourth Amendment and provide to Florida citizens no greater protection than those interpretations." Soca, 673 So.2d at 27 (citing Bernie v.