ALEJANDRO MENDIOLA, 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.
The court held that the exclusionary rule applies to probation revocation hearings, and the trial court erred in admitting illegally seized evidence.
Cocaine was seized from the defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court found the seizure illegal but admitted the evidence…
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 Florida Constitution Article I, Section 12 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order revoking the defendant Alejandro Mendiola’s probation is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the defendant Mendiola from the cause based on the following, briefly stated legal analysis.
First, we agree with the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Tamer v. State, 463 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), that, in the absence of a controlling United States Supreme Court decision — of which there is none in this case — we must follow State v. Dodd, 419 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1982), which holds that the search and seizure exclusionary rule of Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution is applicable to probation revocation hearings. See also Cross v. State, 469 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Second, the trial court found below that a quantity of cocaine seized by police from the defendant Mendiola was obtained in violation of Mendiola’s Fourth Amendment rights, but, then, erroneously refused to suppress the illegally seized evidence on the ground that the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment and of Article I, Section 12 was inapplicable to probation revocation hearings. Third, the illegally seized evidence admitted below formed the sole basis for the probation revocation order under review.
We nonetheless join both the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal, Cross v. State, supra; Tamer v. State, supra, in certifying to the Supreme Court of Florida for further review, pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(5) of the Florida Constitution, the following question as being one of great public importance:
Under the 1983 Amendments to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, does the exclusionary rule apply in probation revocation hearings?
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Uriguen, 486 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…the exclusionary rule applies to probation revocation proceedings under Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution as amended in 1983. This court has recently so held, relying upon State v. Dodd, 419 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1982): Mendiola v. State, 490 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); State v. Pearson, 476 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) as have the second and fourth districts. Cross v. State, 469 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Tamer v. State, 463 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4d DCA 1985). We, accordingly, affirm and joi…
-
State v. Mendiola, 492 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1986)…PER CURIAM. We review Mendiola v. State, 490 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), to answer a certified question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We previously answered the certified question * affirmatively in State v. Cross, 487 So. 2d 1056 (Fla.1986). We appr…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Dodd, 419 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1982)
- Cross v. State, 469 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Page v. Burd, 463 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Tamer v. State, 463 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)