IN RE THE INTEREST OF J.A.R. AND J.L.R., CHILDREN. LENETTE RALSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unreasonable Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court adjudicating two of appellant’s minor children dependents. The sole issue which warrants summary discussion pertains to appellant’s contention that the court erred in denying her motion to suppress photographs which were seized during a search conducted pursuant to a search warrant for a handgun. The basis of that denial was the court’s conclusion that Florida’s constitutionally embodied exclusionary rule does not apply in dependency proceedings. Although we recognize that the issue raised is one of first impression, it need not be resolved herein because we find that the search of which appellant complains was not an unreasonable one requiring invocation of the rule, if applicable. Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
McCORD, BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.W. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 651 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…bearing on the welfare of the children involved. Technical rules of evidence which prevent the court from considering critical evidence are not favored, see, e.g., In the Interest of S.C. v. State, 471 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); In re J.A.R., 419 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); T.A.F. v. Duval Coun [*756] ty, 273 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), and should be expressly raised by objection. The objections made in this case were neither of the general kind allowed in Hopkins nor were they specific objectio…