THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JUAN GARCIA, 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.
Florida affirmed the trial court's suppression of evidence seized from Garcia's home without a warrant, finding the record supported the trial court's factual determination that police were not in hot pursuit.
A trial court's factual findings on a motion to suppress, when supported by the record, will not be disturbed on appeal.
[1] On appeal from a suppression order, the trial court's factual findings regarding witness credibility and the weight of evidence are binding on the appellate court if supp…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“not even convinced that they were chasing a person”
Trial court's statement before granting the motion to suppress, indicating skepticism of the state's hot pursuit justification.
Police officers conducted surveillance of Garcia's home and claimed to pursue a suspect into the house without a warrant, asserting hot pursuit as jus…
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 Hot Pursuit Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
The state appeals the trial court’s order suppressing evidence seized from defendant Garcia’s home without a warrant. At the suppression hearing, police officers testified that during surveillance of the house, they observed a suspect enter Garcia’s home and pursued him. The state argued that the warrantless entry was lawful because the police were “in hot pursuit.” Testimony offered by the defendant contradicted the state’s position. In his deposition, one officer stated that he saw no one outside the house. Two occupants of the house testified that only police ran inside. Before granting the motion to suppress, the court indicated it was “not even convinced that they were chasing a person... . ”
On a motion to suppress, the trial court is the trier of both fact and law. Cameron v. State, 112 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). The credibility of the witnesses and the weight of evidence are matters within the province of the trial judge, Reynolds v. State, 222 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), whose determinations concerning questions of fact must be accepted by appellate courts if the record supports the findings. State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Consequently, the trial court’s resolution of conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Thomas, 212 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).
Because we find support in the record for the trial court’s decision, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Gonzalez v. State, 578 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…point, and we are bound by this implicit finding. See Harvey v. State, 502 So. 2d 1305, 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Dooley v. State, 501 So. 2d 18, 18-19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); State v. Stephens, 441 So. 2d 171, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Garcia, 431 So. 2d 651, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). . The above-stated officer so testified below (R.348). Mrs. Gonzalez, on the other hand, gave a different version of this encounter; she testified that this officer said they were police and that "they needed to come in the…
-
State v. Paul, 638 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…9 S.Ct. 642, 21 L.Ed.2d 574 (1969); Fast v. Wainwright, 310 F.Supp. 404 (S.D.Fla.1970), affirmed, 439 F. 2d 1162 (5th Cir.1971). See also Rodriguez v. State, 436 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1984); State v. Garcia, 431 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Bowles v. State, 381 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).…
-
State v. Polak, 598 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ed are matters within the province of the trial judge, whose determinations of factual questions must be accepted by the appellate court if the record supports that finding. Cameron v. State, 112 So. 2d 864, 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); State v. Garcia, 431 So. 2d 651, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636, 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). In the instant case, the county judge determined in ruling on the motion in li-mine that the bypass of the T-cell constituted a substantial modification of the dev…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cameron v. State, 112 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Williams v. State, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Reynolds v. State, 222 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- State v. Thomas, 212 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)