THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SUZANNE DECONINGH, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fourth Amendment Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
We affirm the order entered by the trial court suppressing a blood sample taken from defendant to determine alcohol content following her admission to police that she had shot her husband. The taking of blood by police as a standard procedure in homicide cases without reasonable cause to believe the blood would lead to desired evidence has been condemned as a Fourth Amendment violation. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). No justification for the intrusion appears from the circumstances of this case. See Jones v. State, 343 So. 2d 921 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 172 (Fla.1977).
Defendant’s cross-appeal of the suppression order insofar as it denied her motion to suppress “all tangible evidence” seized from her house is dismissed. State v. Clark, 384 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 638 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1994)…al thereafter rendered several decisions which refused to permit a defendant to cross-appeal under similar circumstances. State v. Roberts, 415 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Ferguson, 405 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. DeConingh, 396 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Clark, 384 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980). These decisions were premised explicitly or implicitly upon the rationale that such cross-appeals were not authorized by the appellate rule…
-
State v. Hipolito Barreiro, 432 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…h, which were either ruled on adversely to him or not considered by the trial court. It is clear that were this an appeal by the State, we would have no authority to review rulings adverse to the defendant by way of cross-appeal, State v. DeConingh, 396 So. 2d 858 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); State v. Clark, 384 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1980), or, more subtly, reach these rulings by holding that the trial court was right for the wrong reasons, State v. Roberts, 415 So. 2d 796 (Fla.…
-
State v. Roberts, 415 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…United States Constitution. . We note that while the defendant claims error in this determination, we may not consider the contention in this proceeding either by way of cross-appeal (which the defendant correctly did not file), State v. DeConingh, 396 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Clark, 384 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980), or as an argument that the trial court was “right for the wrong reason.” State v. Pratt, 386 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). . Rober…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966)
- State v. Clark, 384 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Esaw Jones v. State, 343 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)