CLYDE MCPHADDER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 cannot appeal a pretrial order suppressing informant statements on electronic recordings as evidence obtained by search and seizure.
The state sought to appeal a pretrial order suppressing statements made by an informant on electronic recordings. The district court below allowed the…
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 Suppression Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review State v. McPhadder, 452 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), because of direct and express conflict with State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The issue before us is whether the state may appeal a nonfinal pretrial order striking statements made by an informant on electronic recordings on the ground that the informant was not available to testify and the statements were hearsay. The district court below held that an appeal was permitted under the provisions of rule 9.140(c)(1)(B), Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure, permitting an appeal of a pretrial order suppressing confessions, admissions, or evidence obtained by search and seizure. The court recognized conflict with Steinbrecher where it was held that review was not permitted as of right and could be performed only by way of a petition for writ of certiorari.
The rule provides, in pertinent part, that the state may appeal an order suppressing before trial confessions, admissions, or evidence obtained by search and seizure. The district court reasoned that “[although the question on appeal is not one involving a search and seizure issue, the evidence which-was the subject of the order appealed was ‘obtained by search and seizure’ and was suppressed before trial.” McPhadder, 452 So. 2d at 1018. We do not agree that the evidence was obtained by search and seizure. The evidence at issue consisted of statements made by an informant on electronic recorded tapes which were suppressed because the informant was unavailable and could not be called at trial. We see no search and seizure issue. The decision of the district court is quashed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)…ppeal is appropriate. For example, rule 9.140(c)(1)(B) permits appeals of orders suppressing evidence only if the evidence is obtained by search or seizure. This unnecessary restriction may result in irremediable harm. See, e.g., McPhadder v. State, 475 So. 2d 1215 (Fla.1985). . See supra n. 1 at 257. . Robinson v. State, 132 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1961). The extent of district court certiorari jurisdiction is governed generally by precedences previously applicable to this Court. Dresner v. City of Tallahassee, 164 S…
-
State v. Rickie Lee Palmore, 495 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1986)…s, and evidence. We find that at least two other district courts have not so narrowly interpreted the rule. State v. McPhadder, 452 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (suppression orders reviewable under rule 9.140(c)(1)(B)), reversed on other grounds, 475 So. 2d 1215 (Fla.1985); State v. Segura, 378 So. 2d 1240 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). In Segura, the Second District held that a “motion in limine was in effect a motion to suppress and subject to our review on appeal.” Id. at 1242 (citing to rule 9.140(c)(1)(B)). The su…
-
State v. Cesaero Brea, 530 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1988)…defendant himself. The term also encompasses statements made by someone acting in concert with the defendant such as a co-conspirator.3 In concluding the state could not appeal, the district court relied on its reconciliation of McPhadder v. State, 475 So. 2d 1215 (Fla.1985), with State v. Palmore, 495 So. [*926] 2d 1170 (Fla.1986), and the disapproval in Palmore of State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We disagree with the district court’s analysis. In Pal-more, the state sought review of…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. McPHADDER, 452 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)