VISTA BANK, APPELLANT,

v.

SUZANNE J. SCHONSHECK, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Smith, 584 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
  …ee that the local ordinance did not, as a matter of law, authorize an arrest in this case, our decision does not require the suppression of the evidence. See DeFillippo. See also State v. Joyce, 529 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); McCrimmon v. State, 505 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 491 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). This ordinance had been duly promulgated and was presumptively valid at the time of this arrest. As the United States Supreme Court has observed: Police are charged to enfo…
• State v. Joyce, 529 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
  …1979)) (evidence seized incident to an arrest under presumptively valid ordinance is admissible), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 39, 98 L.Ed.2d 170 (1987); Williams v. State, 491 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (same); see also McCrimmon v. State, 505 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). There was no basis for suppressing the evidence obtained. We need not reach the remaining arguments raised by the State. Reversed and remanded. . The trial court did not address the defendant’s attack on the constitutionality…
• State v. Calloway, 589 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
  …higan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979). See also Muehleman v. State, 503 So. 2d 310 (Fla.1987); State v. Smith, 584 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Joyce, 529 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); McCrimmon v. State, 505 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 491 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because the Melbourne loitering ordinance had not been declared unconstitutional at the time of defendant’s arrest by any controlling precedent, the police officer acted in…

Authorities Cited

• Centrust Sav. Bank v. Barnett Banks Tr. Co., N.A., 483 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)