DECONTI

v.

COTTER

Citator

Cited By

• Mullis v. State, 79 So. 3d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
  …SSION A. The Pharmacy Records After the circuit court entered its written order on Mr. Mullis’s motion to suppress, this court adopted the First District’s reasoning in Carter in State v. Tamulonis, 39 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), review denied, 52 So. 3d 662 (Fla.2011). We concluded that section 893.07(4) authorizes “law enforcement officers whose duty it is to enforce the laws of this state relating to controlled substances” to obtain an individual’s pharmacy records related to controlled substances wi…
• Lamb v. State, 55 So. 3d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
  …lenge this portion of the ruling on appeal, and the trial court did not err in denying the suppression of Lamb’s pharmacy records of her prescriptions for controlled substances. See State v. Tamulonis, 39 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), cert. denied, 52 So. 3d 662 (Fla.2011). .Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . We note that the trial court did not have the benefit of the Shulcitis decision at the time of the hearing on Lamb’s motion to suppress.…
• State v. Benny Albritton, 58 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
  …7 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla.1985). I also recognize that a panel of this court has issued an opinion concluding that section 893.07(4) is constitutional under the Winfield analysis. See State v. Tamulonis, 39 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), cert. denied, 52 So. 3d 662 (Fla. Jan.3, 2011). However, that ruling was made in a case that is indistinguishable from State v. Bean, 36 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), in which this court expressly declined to accept or reject the reasoning in State v. Carter, 23 So. 3d 798 (F…

  ← 1 / 3 →