NICOLAAS MATHIAS HUPPERTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Huppertz was charged with grand theft by bad check and probation violation. The trial court suppressed the unlawfully seized check in the substantive case but denied suppression in the probation revocation proceeding, relying on the exclusionary rule's inapplicability to probation hearings. The appellate court reversed, holding that the exclusionary rule applies to probation revocation proceedings under Grubbs v. State.
The exclusionary rule is enforceable in probation revocation proceedings. Evidence unlawfully seized cannot be used in probation revocation hearings, and the denial of suppression in such proceedings was erroneous.
[1] The exclusionary rule is enforceable in probation revocation proceedings.
[2] A defendant may appeal an order denying suppression of evidence after entering a nolo contendere plea to a probation violation, provided the admissibility of the evidence…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“On the ground that the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to probation hearings, however, suppression was denied in that proceeding.”
Establishes the trial court's reasoning for denying suppression in the probation revocation hearing despite granting it in the substantive case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHuppertz was arrested without probable cause and a check was seized from him during that unlawful arrest. The trial judge ruled the check was unlawful…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Huppertz was charged with grand theft by attempting to pass a bad check and, because of that offense, with violating a term of probation for possession of a controlled substance.1 The trial judge ruled that the check in question had been unlawfully seized from the defendant and suppressed, as to the substantive case only, both the check and a statement he made immediately after the seizure.2 On the ground that the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to probation hearings, however, suppression was denied in that proceeding. The defendant then plead nolo to the probation violation,3 specifically reserving the right to seek review of the order denying suppression, and now appeals from the re- suiting revocation of probation, judgment, and sentence.4
Following State v. Dodd, 396 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), we reverse with directions to restore the appellant to probation. Like Dodd and Ray v. State, 387 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), we conclude that Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1979) holds that the exclusionary rule is enforceable in probation revocation proceedings and that the district courts must follow Grubbs as the latest supreme court expression on the subject. As we did in Dodd, however, we expressly state that this decision is in direct conflict with the earlier supreme court decision in Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1976), and certify a direct conflict with Shipp v. State, 349 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) and Latham v. State, 360 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Reversed.
.Three other violations which were alleged in the affidavit were expressly abandoned by the state at the hearing. Their inclusion in the order of revocation was therefore obviously erroneous. Hence, the findings of violations of conditions (1), (5) and (10) are stricken from the order below. Pedroso v. State, 380 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
. Since it clearly — and concededly — appears that the check was secured by the police incident to an arrest which was not based on probable cause, this ruling was entirely correct.
. The state nolle prossed the grand theft case.
. We-agree that, as indicated by the nolle prosse, the issue of the admissibility of the check was dispositive of the case, so as to permit an appeal upon a nolo plea under Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nealy v. State, 400 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…as been interpreted as “an express constitutional exclusionary rule,” which should be applied in probation revocation proceedings as well as original criminal prosecutions. Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905, 909 (Fla.1979); also see Huppertz v. State, 399 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Dodd, 396 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (Case Nos. 80-322, 80-499, opinion filed April 21, 1981); Ray v. State, 387 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). But see Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1976). Because we find b…
-
Lavazzoli v. State, 408 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…of his probation, but erroneously refused to entertain a timely motion to suppress evidence relating to three of the charged violations. Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1979); Nealy v. State, 400 So. 2d 95 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Huppertz v. State, 399 So. 2d 992 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); State v. Dodd, 396 So. 2d 1205 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). The remaining violation involved the act of leaving the county of residence without first obtaining the consent of the probation office. This violation will be unaffected by any…
-
State v. Nicolaas Mathias Huppertz, 419 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1982)…PER CURIAM. We exercise discretionary conflict jurisdiction and approve the decision of the district court of appeal, Huppertz v. State, 399 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). State v. Dodd, 419 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1982); Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1979). It is so ordered. ADKINS, A. C. J., BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and McDONALD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1979)
- Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1976)
- State v. Dodd, 396 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- RAY v. State, 387 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Shipp v. State, 349 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Corset Cove, Inc. v. Rosen, 360 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Johnie James Latham, Jr. v. State, 360 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Pedroso v. State, 380 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)