McPhadder v. State, 475 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
McPhadder v. State, 475 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Eldridge (fladistctapp, 2002-04-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Eldridge
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Rule 9.140(c)(1)(B) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that the state may appeal an order "suppressing before trial confessions, admissions, or evidence obtained by search and seizure." See Blore v. Fierro, 636 So.2d 1329, 1331 (Fla.1994); McPhadder v. State, 475 So.2d 1215, 1216 (Fla.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Peek
Fla. Cir. Ct. · 1986 · confidence medium
We see no search and seizure issue. 475 So.2d at 1216 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Johnson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See McPhadder v. State, 475 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1985) (stating that review of an order striking an electronic recording of statements made by an informant was permitted only by petition for writ of certiorari); State v. Hernandez, 875 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (treating state's appeal of an order suppressing a recording of a controlled phone call as a petition for certiorari).
cited Cited "see" State v. Ramirez
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See McPhadder v. State, 475 So.2d 1215 (Fla.1985).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Lockman
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See McPhadder v. State, 475 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1985) (recorded statement voluntarily made by informant, but unknown to defendant, was not obtained by search and seizure).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Stevens
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., McPhadder v. State, 475 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1985) (dismissing appeal because pretrial order sought to be reviewed was not one suppressing confessions, admissions, or evidence obtained by search and seizure).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Pettis
Fla. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., McPhadder v. State, 475 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1985). [3] See supra n. 1 at 257. [4] Robinson v. State, 132 So.2d 3 (Fla. 1961).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clyde McPHADDER, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
65724.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug 29, 1985.
475 So. 2d 1215
Per Curiam.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published

[*1216] Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review State v. McPhadder, 452 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), because of direct and express conflict with State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So.2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

The issue before us is whether the state may appeal a nonfinal pretrial order striking statements made by an informant on electronic recordings on the ground that the informant was not available to testify and the statements were hearsay. The district court below held that an appeal was permitted under the provisions of rule 9.140(c)(1)(B), Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure, permitting an appeal of a pretrial order suppressing confessions, admissions, or evidence obtained by search and seizure. The court recognized conflict with Steinbrecher where it was held that review was not permitted as of right and could be performed only by way of a petition for writ of certiorari.

The rule provides, in pertinent part, that the state may appeal an order suppressing before trial confessions, admissions, or evidence obtained by search and seizure. The district court reasoned that "[a]lthough the question on appeal is not one involving a search and seizure issue, the evidence which was the subject of the order appealed was `obtained by search and seizure' and was suppressed before trial." McPhadder, 452 So.2d at 1018. We do not agree that the evidence was obtained by search and seizure. The evidence at issue consisted of statements made by an informant on electronic recorded tapes which were suppressed because the informant was unavailable and could not be called at trial. We see no search and seizure issue. The decision of the district court is quashed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.