STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
RICARDO FERNANDEZ
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 appealed a trial court's order suppressing evidence obtained via an anticipatory search warrant that the trial court found deficient. The appellate court affirmed the suppression on the warrant deficiency but reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to address whether the defendant had standing to challenge the invalid warrant.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the search and seizure was illegal based on the deficient warrant, but reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to address the threshold issue of whether Fernandez had standing to challenge the invalid warrant. If the trial court finds Fernandez establishes standing, the suppression motion should be granted.
[1] A trial court's order granting a motion to suppress based on a deficient anticipatory search warrant may be affirmed to the extent it finds the search and seizure illegal…
[2] A case must be remanded for a new suppression hearing if the defendant's standing to challenge an invalid warrant was not addressed by the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If the trial court finds Mr. Fernandez establishes his standing to challenge the invalid warrant, then the motion to suppress should be granted.”
Establishes the conditional nature of the remand: standing must be addressed first as a threshold matter before the suppression order is final.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRicardo Fernandez moved to suppress evidence obtained from an anticipatory search warrant. The trial court granted the motion, finding the affidavit 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 Good Faith Exception To Warrant Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. The State appeals the trial court's order granting Ricardo Fernandez's motion to suppress after the trial court found the affidavit used to obtain the anticipatory search warrant was deficient and the good faith exception to the warrant requirement did not apply. We affirm the trial court's order to the extent it provides the search and
- 2 - seizure was illegal based upon the deficient warrant without comment.
However, because the issue of Mr. Fernandez's standing to challenge the invalid warrant was not addressed below,1 we reverse and remand for a new suppression hearing at which the trial court shall address the sole issue of standing. If the trial court finds Mr. Fernandez establishes his standing to challenge the invalid warrant, then the motion to suppress should be granted. See McCauley v. State, 842 So. 2d 897, 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Reversed and remanded. KELLY, MORRIS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur. 1We note that the State did not raise any argument related to Mr. Fernandez's standing to challenge the invalid warrant below; however, this court has held that the State is permitted to raise a lack of standing, in the Fourth Amendment context, for the first time on appeal. See State v. Pettis, 266 So. 3d 238, 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Hendley v. State, 58 So. 3d 296, 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); State v. Fernandez, 36 So. 3d 120, 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Murphy v. State, 32 So. 3d 122, 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); McCauley v. State, 842 So. 2d 897, 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
We are bound by these decisions. See Lee v. Estate of Payne, 148 So. 3d 776, 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("We are constrained by precedent unless changed by the supreme court."); Gulf Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Singleton, 265 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (acknowledging "stare decisis demands that we adhere to our ruling on identical facts" in prior cases).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Reddin (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)
-
Elliott David Daniels v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- McCAULEY v. State, 842 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Hendley v. State, 58 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- State v. Orquidea Fernandez, 36 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Gulf Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Singleton, 265 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- LEE v. Est. OF Randy John Payne, 148 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Murphy v. State, 32 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- State v. Pettis, 266 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)