STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES RAYMOND ALBURY, 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.
The State appeals a suppression order in a cannabis trafficking case, challenging the trial court's decision to exclude 291 pounds of cannabis as evidence based on an alleged violation of Florida's controlled substance disposal statute. The appellate court reverses, holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of state regulatory statutes absent a constitutional violation.
The exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of state regulatory statutes such as section 893.12(1)(a). The exclusionary rule is limited to deterring police misconduct that violates constitutional rights, particularly Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Whether to extend the exclusionary rule to statutory violations is a matter for the Legislature.
[1] The exclusionary rule is an inappropriate sanction for a violation of a state regulatory statute, absent a constitutional violation.
[2] The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter future unlawful police conduct and effectuate Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizu…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim.... Instead, the rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures”
Establishes the foundational purpose of the exclusionary rule and why it does not apply to mere statutory violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Albury was charged with trafficking in cannabis and conspiracy following an undercover operation by the Plantation police department. The cann…
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 Deterrence Of Police Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
HURLEY, Judge.
The State appeals from an order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. We reverse the order and remand for trial.
Charles Albury was charged with trafficking in cannabis and conspiring to traffic in cannabis following an undercover operation staged by the Plantation police department. He filed a motion to suppress 291 pounds of cannabis, contending that the cannabis used by the Plantation police in their undercover operation was transferred to them by the Fort Lauderdale police department in violation of section 893.12(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1983). More specifically, he alleged that the cannabis was used as evidence in another criminal prosecution, but never disposed of as required by section 893.12(l)(a). That statute provides:
(1) All substances controlled by this chapter which may be handled, delivered, possessed, or distributed contrary to any provisions of this chapter and all such controlled substances the lawful possession of which is not established or the title to which cannot be ascertained are declared to be contraband, shall be subject to seizure and confiscation by any person whose duty it is to enforce the provisions, of the chapter, and shall be disposed of as follows: (a) Except as in this section otherwise provided, the court having jurisdiction shall order such controlled substances forfeited and destroyed. A record of the place where said controlled substances were seized, of the kinds and quantities of controlled substances destroyed, and of the time, place and manner of destruction shall be kept, and a return under oath reporting said destruction shall be made to the court or magistrate and to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration by the officer who destroys them.
We need not decide whether a section 893.12(1) violation exists to resolve this appeal because we find that suppression of evidence under the exclusionary rule is an inappropriate sanction for such an alleged statutory violation. The defendant in this case can show no prejudice from the alleged police misconduct nor has he established a violation of his constitutional rights. It is important to recall that the exclusionary rule was developed to deter police misconduct which results in constitutional violations. This was explained in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347-48, 94 S.Ct. 613, 619, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974), where the court said:
The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim.... Instead, the rule’s prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures ....
The same rationale was restated in United States v. Leon, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), where the court noted that the application of the exclusionary rule had been limited to those instances “where a Fourth Amendment violation has been substantial and deliberate.” (Emphasis supplied).
The defendant in this case asks that the exclusionary rule be extended to apply to evidence which may have been acquired in violation of a state regulatory statute. We reject this proposition. Whether the benefits which might inure from such an exclusionary rule justify the attendant social costs is a question for the Legislature.
Accordingly, we reverse the suppression order and remand this cause for trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Zina Johnson, 814 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2002)…ords. I agree with Judge Gross’s reasoning in State v. Rutherford, 707 So. 2d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997): The [exclusionary] rule is properly applied in cases where evidence is obtained through a constitutional violation, e.g., State v. Albury, 453 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), a violation of a statute implementing or expanding on a constitutional right, see Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla.1992); D.F. v. State, [*395] 682 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Gulley v. State, 501 So. 2d 1388 (Fl…
-
State v. Rutherford, 707 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…status given to [it] by the legislature.” Id. at 348. We agree with the Wenger court’s application of an exclusionary rule. The rule is properly applied in cases where evidence is obtained through a constitutional violation, e.g., State v. Albury, 453 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), a violation of a statute implementing or expanding on a constitutional right, see Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla.1992); D.F. v. State, 682 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Gulley v. State, 501 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 4th…
-
Rice v. State, 525 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…t. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). The suppression of evidence by use of an exclusionary rule is not an appropriate sanction for this statutory violation. See State v. Albury, 453 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The purpose of a judicially imposed exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct resulting in constitutional violations, or its equivalent. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); Unite…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1974)