STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTONIO RUIZ, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Probability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In our opinion the trial court erroneously granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. The evidence (cocaine) should have been received under the inevitable discovery doctrine. State v. LeCroy, 435 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 907, 105 S.Ct. 3532, 87 L.Ed.2d 656 (1985). “If the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered ... then the evidence should be received.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509, 81 L.Ed.2d 377, 387 (1984). In order to apply this doctrine, there does not have to be an absolute certainty of discovery, but rather, just a reasonable probability. United States v. Brookins, 614 F. 2d 1037 (5th Cir.1980).
Here it appears that the trial court, in rejecting the inevitable discovery doctrine, improperly required the absolute certainty test rather than the reasonable probability finding.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY, LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Sonny Ray Jeffries v. State, 797 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2001)…regardless of whether the ground of suppression of the statement is violation of the fourth amendment, fifth amendment, or sixth amendment. See Nix v. Williams, [467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) ]. Additionally, in State v. Ruiz, 502 So. 2d 87, 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), the district court stated: “If the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered ... then the evidence should be received.” Nix v. Will…
-
Hatcher v. State, 834 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…motion as a matter of routine police procedure.” Craig, 510 So. 2d at 863 (citations omitted). “In order to apply this doctrine, there does not have to be an absolute certainty of discovery, but rather, just a reasonable probability.” State v. Ruiz, 502 So. 2d 87, 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (citing United States v. Brookins, 614 F. 2d 1037 (5th Cir.1980)); see also Jeffries, 797 So. 2d at 578 (quoting Ruiz). The State argues that Hatcher was observed riding in the passenger seat without a seat belt as the vehic…
-
State v. Joelis Jardines, 9 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…n); Rosales v. State, 878 So. 2d 497, 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“Evidence which was originally obtained improperly should not be suppressed, provided that it would have been legitimately uncovered pursuant to normal police practices.”); State v. Ruiz, 502 So. 2d 87, 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (finding that “to apply this doctrine, there does not have to be an absolute certainty of discovery, but rather, just a reasonable probability” (citing United States v. Brookins, 614 F. 2d 1037 (5th Cir.1980))); see also Jeff…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984)
- United States v. Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Thomas v. Kadish, 473 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1985)
- Fulton v. Collins, 473 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1985)
- Simmons v. State, 435 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)