CopyCited 81 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 10481
...1 25 Because we find the search constitutional, we do not address the other issues. 2 26 Accordingly, the district court is affirmed. 27 AFFIRMED. 1 We are aware that at least one state in this circuit, Florida, permits strip searches only where law enforcement officers have probable cause. Fla.Stat. § 901.211....
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2008 WL 596782
...e suspicion to detain him; (2) there was no basis to conduct a pat down for weapons, and the search which revealed the bag between his buttocks was unreasonable; (3) the police lacked probable cause to search the vehicle; and (4) the search violated section 901.211 of the Florida Statutes (2002), which governs strip searches....
...on to sell narcotics, and the Second District concluded that the officers "were justified in conducting the further search of Jenkins' person to prevent the disposal of the cocaine." Id. The Second District then addressed whether the search violated section 901.211 of the Florida Statutes and concluded that pulling the waist area of the boxer shorts by Officer Bonello qualified as a "strip search" under the statute. See id. at 28. The Second District concluded that the search of Jenkins violated the provision of section 901.211 requiring that "[e]ach strip search ....
...on premises where the search cannot be observed by persons not physically conducting or observing the search," and also the provision that requires written authorization from the supervising officer on duty before conducting a strip search. Id. at 29 & n. 2 (quoting § 901.211(3), Fla....
...stion is . . . whether a particular statutory scheme authorizeseither expressly or by implicationthe exclusion of evidence for a statutory violation." Id. at 30. The Second District held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of section 901.211 because "the legislature explicitly addressed the issue of remedies in section 901.211(6) but failed to make any mention of the exclusion of evidence as a remedy." Id....
...4th DCA 1996), in which the Fourth District held that suppression of evidence is the appropriate remedy for violation of the strip search statute. See Jenkins,
924 So.2d at 30, 34. The Second District disagreed with reliance on Gulley v. State,
501 So.2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), in this section-
901.211 context because the statutory scheme at issue in Gulley, which governed DUI blood tests, contained specific provisions which required the exclusion of evidence obtained in that context....
...hing was clearly outweighed by the need for law enforcement to retrieve the contraband before it could be discarded or destroyed by Jenkins. Therefore, we hold that this search incident to this arrest was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Section 901.211 and the Exclusionary Rule Under federal case law, when it is determined that a search has not violated the Fourth Amendment, the issue of whether the evidence discovered in violation of a statute is subject to suppression is to be determined based upon legislative intent....
...acility without obtaining the written authorization of the supervising officer on duty. (6) Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting any statutory or common-law right of any person for purposes of any civil action or injunctive relief. § 901.211, Fla. Stat. (2005). As noted in footnote one, the State disputes whether section 901.211 even applies to Jenkins because subsection (2) refers only to "traffic, regulatory, or misdemeanor offense[s]." § 901.211(2), Fla. Stat. However, *130 we need not address today whether this statute applies to felonies such as that with which Jenkins was charged. Regardless of which and whether certain offenses fall under the statute, it is clear that the plain language of section 901.211 does not expressly provide for exclusion of evidence as a remedy for a violation of the statute. [13] The only reference to remedies in the statute before us is located in subsection (6), and those remedies are civil and injunctive in nature. Therefore, we conclude that the exclusionary rule is not a remedy for a violation of section 901.211 unless a constitutional violation has also occurred. [14] The dissent asserts that we should hold that the exclusionary rule applies to section 901.211 because "[t]he exclusion of the evidence in this case would further the goal of deterrence of further police misconduct, one of the major goals of the exclusionary rule." Dissenting op. at 134. While there is no doubt that application of the exclusionary rule to section 901.211 would deter violations of this statute indeed, this is the goal of the exclusionary rule, see Arizona v....
...titutional violation. Although we may prefer that evidence obtained in violation of a specific statute, such as the strip search statute, be subject to exclusion, the remedies for violation of this statute fall within the purview of the Legislature. Section 901.211 does not expressly list the exclusionary rule as a remedy and, therefore, we do not infer that this remedy is available for violations of the statute regardless of its effectiveness as a deterrent or how desirable or beneficial we believe exclusion may be....
...CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, we approve the decision of the Second District that the police had probable cause to arrest Jenkins, that the search of Jenkins was valid under the Fourth Amendment, and that the exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of section 901.211 of the Florida *131 Statutes....
...WELLS, ANSTEAD, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion, in which PARIENTE, J., concurs. QUINCE, J., dissenting. I cannot agree with the majority that the search of Jenkins under the facts and circumstances of this case did not violate section 901.211, Florida Statutes (2003), and was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment....
...a female officer was present. Even if no body part was exposed, "[t]he statute requires that a strip search be performed out of public view, not merely that the areas of the body enumerated in subsection (1) be shielded from public view." Id. at 29. Section 901.211 requires that the police do more than just prevent body parts from being exposed....
...There is no reason why Jenkins had to be searched at that particular time and in such a demeaning manner. Because it was possible for the police to have escorted Jenkins to a station for a proper strip search, they should have done so. Instead the police violated section 901.211 and subjected Jenkins to a degrading, embarrassing, and public experience. Jenkins' search was unreasonable and for that reason, I respectfully dissent. The majority also concludes that exclusion of the evidence is not a proper remedy for a violation of section 901.211....
...(1997);
901.19(1), Fla. Stat. (1961). But see Hudson v. Michigan,
547 U.S. 586,
126 S.Ct. 2159,
165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) (holding that violation of "knock and announce" rule does not require exclusion of all evidence found in a search). On the other hand, section
901.211(6) makes explicit reference to civil and injunctive remedies....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 210135
...PARIENTE, Judge. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine. We conclude that the cocaine obtained as the result of an unlawful strip search should have been suppressed because the strip search constituted a clear and substantial violation of section 901.211, Florida Statutes (1993), a statute designed to regulate police conduct....
...during a strip search. The officer testified that if the cocaine had not been discovered, defendant would have been transported to the sheriff's department to complete the paperwork on the warrant and then he would have been released to his mother. Section 901.211 mandates specific procedures before a strip search may be conducted. Section 901.211 provides: (1) As used in this section, the term "strip search" means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual or manual inspection of the genitals; buttocks; anus; breasts, in the case of a female; or undergarments of such person....
...Defendant also claims that the strip search constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and violated *152 defendant's rights as a juvenile when he was placed in a holding cell with an adult inmate. [1] The state concedes that the strip search was done in violation of section 901.211 in that the search was done with another inmate present and the officer did not obtain the prior permission of his supervisor. The state does not agree that 901.211(4) was violated because the officer's strip search did not include penetration of a body cavity. Despite conceding that the search violated portions of section 901.211, the state argues that the exclusionary rule should not be the sanction where the search was undertaken with probable cause under section 901.211(2)(a)....
...See also Justice v. City of Peachtree City,
961 F.2d 188 (11th Cir.1992) (strip search of juvenile was conducted in least intrusive manner where limited to exclude body cavities and performed by officers of same sex in room with only participants present). Section
901.211 codifies minimum acceptable standards of conduct for law enforcement officers conducting strip searches in Florida....
...See Gulley v. State,
501 So.2d 1388, 1391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and cases cited therein. Welch v. Rice,
636 So.2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), the only case to construe this statute, does not change our conclusion. In Welch, the second district construed section
901.211(2) not to apply in cases involving an individual arrested on a capias warrant because of a failure to appear....
...cat, would surely have been covered as either a regulatory or misdemeanor offense. Notwithstanding this statutory construction, the second district reversed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the sheriff because the remainder of section 901.211 applied to all strip searches and there was evidence in the record of a violation of subsection 901.211(5)....
...d in violation of the statute. The fact that the statute contains the language that "[n]othing in this section shall be construed as limiting any statutory or common-law right of any person for purposes of any civil action or injunctive relief," see § 901.211(6), does not evince a legislative intent to limit the sanctions imposed by the trial courts for statutory violations....
...linquency. REVERSED AND REMANDED. GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs. FARMER, J., dissents with opinion. FARMER, Judge, dissenting. Defendant contends that suppression is the proper remedy when evidence is obtained from a search that violates the provisions of section 901.211, Florida Statutes (1993)....
...the prior permission of his supervisor. The state argues, however, that the exclusionary rule should not be the sanction for violation of the statutory requirements related to strip searches where the search was undertaken with probable cause under section 901.211(2)(a)....
...Judges are not empowered to rewrite statutes under the guise of statutory construction. I would affirm. NOTES [1] A search of a juvenile in the presence of an adult inmate may also be contrary to the requirements that juveniles are to be segregated from adults. See generally § 39.044, Fla.Stat. (1993). [2] Section 901.211, Florida Statutes (1993), provides: "(1) As used in this section, the term `strip search' means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual or manual inspection of the genita...
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116072, 2011 WL 4501111
...te probable cause to violate their constitutional right to bodily privacy. Defendant Williams clearly conducted a search of the Plaintiffs that was consistent with the definition of “strip search” in the Florida Statutes. According to Fla. Stat. § 901.211 , an officer conducts a “strip search” of an arrested person by having that individual “remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual or manual inspection of the genitals; buttocks; anus; breast, in the case of a female; or undergarments of such person.” Fla. Stat. § 901.211 (emphasis added)....
...The record evidence reveals that the department’s written policy regarding strip searches is: 50.2.33 A strip search is a thorough search of the prisoner and their clothing. Clothing is removed, body cavities are checked and all clothing is carefully scrutinized. Defined in F.S.S. 901.211 as the removal or re-arrangement of some or all of the clothing so as to permit visual or manual inspection of the genitals, buttocks, anus, or breasts, in the case of a female, or undergarments of such person....
...trip search policy required the search to take place upon a showing of probable cause and outside the presence of others, especially members of the opposite sex. See Defendant City’s Answers to Interrogatories, Dkt. 53-2 at 54; see also Fla. Stat. § 901.211 (l)(a), (3)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 167672
...mant's veracity, reliability[,] and basis of knowledge." For his second point on appeal, Jenkins argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he was not subjected to a strip search. Jenkins contends that the police violated the provisions of section 901.211, Florida Statutes (2003), regarding the performance of strip searches, as well as his constitutional right of privacy....
...United States,
517 U.S. 690, 696-97,
116 S.Ct. 1657,
134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). The legality of the manner of the search is subject to evaluation under two standards: (1) the Fourth Amendment mandate that searches be reasonable and (2) the requirements of section
901.211 concerning the performance of strip searches....
...Smith, 118 N.C.App. 106, 454 S.E.2d 680, 687 (1995) (Walker, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)) (upholding search where officer slid down defendant's underwear in search conducted in public street behind door of defendant's car). (2) The Requirements of Section 901.211 (a) The Statutory Provisions Section 901.211 provides: (1) As used in this section, the term "strip search" means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual or manual inspection of the genitals; buttocks; anus; breasts, in the case of a female; or undergarments of such person....
...The statutory language thus encompasses circumstances where an arrestee is required by the police to submit to the rearrangement of his clothing "so as to permit a visual . . . inspection of . . . [his] buttocks . . . or undergarments." The State does not suggest otherwise. Nor does the State suggest that section 901.211 is inapplicable due to the circumstance that Jenkins was not formally arrested prior to the search. Although the definition of "strip search" in the statute only covers searches of "an arrested person," see § 901.211(1), in this context "arrested" should not be interpreted restrictively....
...e rearrangement of his clothing by the officer for the purpose of facilitating "visual . . . inspection" of his buttocks. We conclude that the officers' description of the search established that the search was a "strip search" within the meaning of section 901.211. Although the search of Jenkins does not correspond to the common conception of what is involved in a strip search, the search nonetheless falls within the scope of the expansive definition of "strip search" set forth in section 901.211(1)....
...endant placing a plastic bagcontaining what the officer believed to be illicit drugsin the defendant's crotch area. See id. We concluded that in such circumstances there was no strip search because there was no "inspection" within the meaning of section 901.211(1)....
...tead, the officer's purpose was to conduct an inspection in search of possible evidence. Jenkins was forced to submit to the "arrange[ment of] some . . . of his . . . clothing . . . so as to permit a visual . . . inspection of . . . [his] buttocks." § 901.211(1)....
...satisfied, of particular relevance here is the requirement of subsection (3) that "[e]ach strip search . . . be performed . . . on premises where the search cannot be observed by persons not physically conducting or observing the search pursuant to [section 901.211]." The testimony of the officers shows that the strip search of Jenkins was performed in the parking lot beside a service station adjacent to the intersection of two public thoroughfares....
...The statute requires that a strip search be performed out of public view, not merely that the areas of the body enumerated in subsection (1) be shielded from public view. [2] (d) The Exclusionary Rule The final question we must address concerning the application of section 901.211 is whether evidence obtained in the course of a violation of the statute is subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule....
...icationthe exclusion of evidence for a statutory violation. In D.F. v. State,
682 So.2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the court held that evidence obtained in a strip search conducted in violation of the requirements of subsections (3), (4), and (5) of section
901.211 must be suppressed....
...The court went on to state, "Given both the historical purpose of the exclusionary rule and the substantial statutory violation of the statute, suppression of the cocaine obtained by the unlawful strip search is an appropriate remedy." Id. at 154. In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned that the language of section 901.211(6) concerning civil actions and injunctive relief did "not evince a legislative intent to limit the sanctions imposed by the trial courts for statutory violations." Id....
...Accordingly, the court concluded: "We discern no intent on the part of the legislature to limit the court's ability, in the appropriate case, to suppress the results of a strip search obtained in violation of the statute." Id. [3] Certain statutes adopted by the Florida Legislature expressly provideunlike section 901.211for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory requirements....
...he statute. The cases deal with statutes that either (a) are silent on the question of remedies or (b) make specific provision for the exclusion of evidence. In the instant case, however, the legislature explicitly addressed the issue of remedies in section 901.211(6) but failed to make any mention of the exclusion of evidence as a remedy....
...s, but it does not mandate suppression of the evidence. Id. at 483. It is true that the Florida statutory schemeunlike the Missouri scheme simply acknowledges that existing remedies are unaffected by the adoption of the statutory provisions. See § 901.211(6)....
...nce militates strongly against the conclusion that the statute by implication authorizes the exclusionary rule as a remedy. See D.F.,
682 So.2d at 154, 155 (Farmer, J., dissenting) (stating that the inclusion of the provision relating to remedies in section
901.211(6) "makes clear to me that the legislature intended for damages to be the remedy if the statute is ignored"); United States v....
...ty to exercise related constitutional rights or to prepare or present a defense.'" (quoting Nathan v. Municipality of Anchorage, 955 P.2d 528, 533 (Alaska App.1998))). We therefore conclude that application of the exclusionary rule for violations of section 901.211 cannot be justified....
...Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(vi), we certify that our decision is in direct conflict with D.F. Affirmed; conflict certified. WALLACE, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur. NOTES [1] The provisions of section 901.211(2) with respect to arrests for "traffic, regulatory, or misdemeanor offense[s]" have no application here, since the arrest of Jenkins was for a felony drug offense. We note that statutes similar to section 901.211 have been read as governing only searches of persons arrested for the nonfelony offenses referred to in subsection (2). See Jenkins, 82 Conn.App. 111, 842 A.2d at 1155 (holding that statutory provisions similar to section 901.211 "do not address those strip searches that are conducted incident to a lawful arrest on a felony charge")....
...he statute which by their terms apply to all searches that constitute strip searches within the meaning of the statutory definition. [2] We also note that since no written authorization was obtained for the search, it appears that the requirement of section
901.211(5) was not satisfied. [3] In State v. Augustine,
724 So.2d 580, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), a case in which we held that there was no violation of section
901.211 in a "routine strip search" conducted "upon [the defendant's] booking into the county jail," we nonetheless expressed our agreement with the conclusion of D.F. concerning application of the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in the course of a strip search performed in violation of section
901.211....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 1969095
...Henriquez,
485 So.2d 414 (Fla.1986); §
843.01, Fla. Stat. Appellant *587 argues that the state failed to prove that the deputies were in the "lawful execution of any legal duty" in that it presented no proof that the strip search was performed in compliance with section
901.211(5), Florida Statutes (1997)....
...Appellant asserts that Deputy Enrique violated the statute because he did not obtain written authorization of a "supervising officer on duty" before the search. The state responds that the deputy's testimony was sufficient to support a finding that the deputy followed the statutory requirements of section 901.211....
...According to the state, the sheriff qualifies as a "supervising officer," who, as an elected official under Florida Statute section
100.041, remains "on duty" even though he is not physically present at the jail. The state further argues that even if the search did not comply with section
901.211, Florida Statutes, the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal, because an officer's improper performance of his legal duty at the time of a defendant's forcible resistance to the officer is not a defense to a charge of resisting arrest with violence....
...Recognizing that a strip search represents a substantial invasion of an arrestee's privacy interest, the legislature enacted minimal acceptable standards of conduct for law enforcement officers conducting strip searches of persons arrested in Florida. §
901.211, Fla. Stat.; D.F. v. State,
682 So.2d 149, 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). "A strip search conducted in violation of the statutory requirements set forth in section
901.211, in essence, establishes police misconduct and constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation." State v....
...region. [2] We do not address whether the strip search complied with the statute or otherwise met the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. However, we note that in D.F., the state conceded that the strip search was done in violation of section 901.211, where the officer searched the defendant in a holding cell without obtaining the prior permission of his supervisor on duty at the police station....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 786173
...Upon being charged with capital sexual battery, Augustine filed a motion to suppress the photographs taken during the strip search, as well as "testimony related to the strip search and any observations made during that search, and any [of his] statements... related thereto," as being violative of section 901.211, Florida Statutes (1997), which provides for post-arrest strip and body cavity searches. In its order granting the motion to suppress, the trial court defined the issue before it as centering on "the manner in which the [strip] search was conducted." It then found that no violation of section 901.211 had occurred, but that the jail's internal policy as to strip searches was violated, in that the photographs themselves depicted a search that went beyond what was necessary to "ascertain the existence of contraband" being brought into the jail....
...The trial court also found that police misconduct was established by the fact that, prior to Augustine's arrest, the detective involved in the case had probable cause to obtain a search warrant to verify the mark or mole, but did not do so. A strip search conducted in violation of the statutory requirements set forth in section 901.211, in essence, establishes police misconduct and constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 151368
...Jagger, Sr. Asst. County Atty., Clearwater, for appellee Pinellas County. PER CURIAM. Doris Welch appeals from a final summary judgment in favor of Everett S. Rice, Sheriff of Pinellas County. We reverse because the trial court erred in finding that subsection 901.211(5), Florida Statutes (1991), does not apply in this case. Subsection 901.211(5) requires the written authorization of a supervising officer to conduct a strip search....
...She was transported to the Pinellas County Jail, booked and, according to the allegations of her complaint, strip searched. On June 17, 1992, Welch filed a complaint against Pinellas County and Rice, as Sheriff of Pinellas County, [1] alleging that she had been unlawfully strip searched in violation of section 901.211, Florida Statutes (1991). [2] She contended that she was immune from such a search by subsection 901.211(2) which prohibits, with some exceptions not applicable here, strip searches of persons arrested for a "traffic, regulatory, or misdemeanor offense." She also contended that the search was conducted without the written authorization of a supervising officer as required by subsection 901.211(5). On April 23, 1993, the trial court entered summary judgment in Rice's favor, holding that section 901.211 was not applicable to Welch. Apparently, the court determined that indirect criminal contempt of court is not "a traffic, regulatory, or misdemeanor offense" for which strip searching is prohibited, without the presence of the additional factors in subsections 901.211(2)(a) and (b). To this extent, we agree with the trial court and affirm on this issue. However, we reverse because the trial court's judgment, by denying Welch any protection under section 901.211, also holds that subsection 901.211(5), *174 requiring the written authorization of a supervising officer, does not apply....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17271, 1999 WL 1259011
PER CURIAM. The State appeals the trial court’s order suppressing cocaine seized from Daryll Days’ person. At the suppression hearing, Days argued that the police violated section 901.211, Florida Statutes (1997), which regulates strip searches of arrested persons, because the police allegedly conducted the search within public view, and because the officers did not get prior written approval from the supervising officer....
...pants or expose his genital area to bystanders. In contrast, Days testified that the officers pulled down his pants, and bystanders could see his crotch. The State argues that the police conducted only a seizure, and not a strip search. We agree. Subsection 901.211(1) defines a “strip search” as “having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual or manual inspection of the genitals; buttocks; anus; breasts, in the case of a female; or u...
...Here, the officers testified that they did not have Days remove or arrange his clothing to conduct an inspection or examination of Days’ crotch area. Rather, the police saw Days put the contraband down the front of his pants, and merely took steps to seize that evidence. Consequently, we believe section 901.211 does not apply....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17740, 2007 WL 3274326
...Because appellant’s violent resistance to Deputies Enrique and Anton occurred during their attempt to strip search appellant at the Broward main jail, we must evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence on the lawful execution element of the resisting charge by applying Florida law governing strip searches. Section 901.211, Florida Statutes (1997), governs strip searches and “codifies minimum acceptable standards of conduct for law enforcement officers conducting strip searches in Florida.” D.F....
...State,
682 So.2d 149, 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Subsection (5) of the statute states: No law enforcement officer shall order a strip search within the agency or facility without obtaining the written authorization of the supervising officer on duty. §
901.211(5), Fla. Stat. (1997). “A strip search conducted in violation of the statutory requirements set forth in section
901.211, in essence, establishes police misconduct and constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation.” State v....
...Deputy Enrique testified that the only authority he had to conduct the strip search was a written, general jail policy on such searches adopted by the elected Broward Sheriff. A policy or procedure adopted by the sheriff does not control over state law. Because the state failed to prove that the deputies complied ’ with section 901.211(5), it failed to prove that they were acting “in the lawful execution of any legal duty” when they attempted to strip search appellant....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 17683, 2010 WL 4628590
...tute itself "does not expressly provide for exclusion of evidence as a remedy for a violation of the statute." Jenkins v. State,
978 So.2d 116, 128 (Fla. 2008) (finding the exclusionary rule is not a remedy for violation of a "strip search" statute, section
901.211, Florida Statutes (2002))....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...1 Because we find the search constitutional, we do not address the other issues. 2 Accordingly, the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. . We are aware that at least one state in this circuit, Florida, permits strip searches only where law enforcement officers have probable cause. Fla.Stat. § 901.211....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1301455
...nial of his dispositive motion to suppress. We affirm. We hold that the search of Laster's person was consistent with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution but was unlawful under the Florida Strip Search statute, section 901.211, Florida Statutes (2003)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4393
...ge. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine. We conclude that the cocaine obtained as the result of an unlawful strip search should have been suppressed because the strip search constituted a clear and substantial violation of section 901.211, Florida Statutes (1993), a statute designed to regulate police conduct....
...t during a strip search. The officer testified that if the cocaine had not been discovered, defendant would have been transported to the sheriffs department to complete the paperwork on the warrant and then he would have been released to his mother. Section 901.211 mandates specific procedures before a strip search may be conducted. Section 901.211 provides: (1)As used in this section, the term “strip search” means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual or manual inspection of the genitals; buttocks; anus; breasts, in the case of a female; or undergarments of such person....
...Defendant also claims that the strip search constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and violated *152 defendant’s rights as a juvenile when he was placed in a holding cell with an adult inmate. 1 The state concedes that the strip search was done in violation of section 901.211 in that the search was done with another inmate present and the officer did not obtain the prior permission of his supervisor. The state does not agree that 901.211(4) was violated because the officer’s strip search did not include penetration of a body cavity. Despite conceding that the search violated portions of section 901.211, the state argues that the exclusionary rule should not be the sanction where the search was undertaken with probable cause under section 901.211(2)(a)....
...See also Justice v. City of Peachtree City,
961 F.2d 188 (11th Cir.1992) (strip search of juvenile was conducted in least intrusive manner where limited to exclude body cavities and performed by officers of same sex in room ■with only participants present). Section
901.211 codifies minimum acceptable standards of conduct for law enforcement officers conducting strip searches in Florida....
...See Gulley v. State,
501 So.2d 1388, 1391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and cases cited therein. Welch v. Rice,
636 So.2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), the only case to construe this statute, does not change our conclusion. In Welch, the second district construed section
901.211(2) not to apply in cases involving an individual arrested on a capias warrant because of a failure to appear....
...t, would surely have been covered as either a regulatory or misdemeanor offense. Notwithstanding this statutory construction, the second district reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the sheriff because the remainder of section 901.211 applied to all strip searches and there was evidence in the record of a violation of subsection 901.211(5)....
...violation of the statute. The fact that the statute contains the language that “[njothing in this section shall be construed as limiting any statutory or common-law right of any person for purposes of any civil action or injunctive relief,” see § 901.211(6), does not evince a legislative intent to limit the sanctions imposed by the trial courts for statutory violations....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2017 WL 2472562, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87778
...count of negligent infliction of emotional distress against Nurse Harris, Dr. Rodriguez-Garcia, and the Public Health Trust (Count XII); one count of negligent hiring and retention against the Public Health Trust (Count XHI); one count of violating Section 901.211, Florida Statutes, against Miami-Dade County (Count XIV); and one count of loss of consortium brought by Pichardo’s husband against all Defendants (Count XV)....
