ANTHONY SARACUSA, 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.
Saracusa sought certiorari to challenge an order compelling him to appear in a lineup and submit to a blood test for crimes unrelated to his pending charges. The court held that such compulsory procedures require a probable cause finding and cannot be ordered before an information or indictment is filed, and granted the petition.
A trial court errs in compelling a defendant to appear in a lineup and submit to blood testing without making a specific finding of probable cause. The criminal rule authorizing discovery is properly invoked only after an information or indictment has been filed, and any such order remains subject to constitutional limitations.
[1] A violation of Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm sufficient to invoke certiorari jurisdiction.
[2] A criminal rule allowing for compelled lineup and blood sample procedures is properly invoked only after an information or indictment has been filed and is subject to con…
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 violation of the petitioner's rights under the fourth and fifth amendments of the United States Constitution are per se sufficient irreparable harm to invoke this court's certiorari jurisdiction.”
Establishes that constitutional violations justify certiorari review and cannot wait for plenary appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSaracusa was in custody awaiting trial on charges of possession of burglary tools, loitering and prowling, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The s…
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 Probable Cause Finding cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner is in custody awaiting trial on charges of possession of burglary tools, loitering and prowling, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He seeks certiorari relief from an order which compels him to appear in a lineup and to submit to the taking of a blood sample in connection with the state’s investigation of several crimes which are unrelated to the charges for which he is being held.
Upon petitioner’s application, this court stayed execution of the order compelling the lineup and blood test procedures, pending resolution of the petition.
We disagree with the state’s argument that if error exists, it can be remedied on plenary appeal. The violation of the petitioner’s rights under the fourth and fifth amendments of the United States Constitution are per se sufficient irreparable harm to invoke this court’s certiorari jurisdiction.
The state filed motions to compel the petitioner’s compliance to appear in a lineup and to compel the taking of his blood for testing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b)(l)(i) and (vii), and citing in addition to Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 266, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 1953, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and Jones v. State, 343 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
The criminal rule relied upon by the state, however, is properly invoked only after an information or indictment has been filed against a defendant, and then it is still subject to constitutional limitations. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(b)(1).
Although the order compelling the compliance of petitioner states that probable cause was found, a reading of the transcript of the hearing held April 18,1988 by the trial court to resolve these motions demonstrates that the trial judge specifically stated: “I am not in a position to make a finding of probable cause.”
This court, after reading the arguments of counsel, and reviewing the record, finds that it was error for the trial court to compel the petitioner to appear in a live lineup and to submit to a blood test without specifically requiring a finding of probable cause under the rationales of the above cited cases. The defendant’s constitutional rights have been violated by said order. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 105 S.Ct. 1643, 84 L.Ed.2d 705 (1985).
We note the merit in the petitioner’s argument that the motions submitted by the state to compel these intrusions is woefully lacking.
We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the order of April 18, 1988, and remand this case for compliance with the directions herein.
ANSTEAD, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2000)…e conclusion of the proceedings. In support of its conclusion, the district court relied on Joseph v. State, 642 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. Murray, 636 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), and Saracusa v. State, 528 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In each of those cases it had also been determined that no adequate remedy would exist upon final appeal for an alleged continuing violation of constitutional rights during the trial proceedings. See Joseph, 642 So. 2d at 613 n.…
-
Williams v. Spears, 719 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…suggest that certiorari is an appropriate remedy where constitutional rights are deprived or delayed during the pendency of a legal proceeding. See Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. Murray, 636 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Saracusa v. State, 528 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), disapproved on other grounds, Doe v. State, 634 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1994). With regard to a non-parent, visitation rights are statutory and a court has no inherent authority to award visitation. See Meeks v. Garner, 598 So. 2d 261…
-
Wyche v. State, 536 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…s no need, despite Wyche’s urging to the contrary, for the State to make some preliminary showing of reasonableness or to establish probable cause. United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. at 22, 93 S.Ct. at 776, 35 L.Ed.2d at 103. But see Saracusa v. State, 528 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).4 CERTIORARI DENIED. . Section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1987), provides: "Summoning and examining witnesses for state. — The state attorney shall have summoned all witnesses required on behalf of the state; and he is allowed t…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1967)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966)
- Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (U.S. 1969)
- Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (U.S. 1985)
- Esaw Jones v. State, 343 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)