STATE
v.
CATALANO
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.
Appellant challenged the suppression of evidence from a vehicle stop based on an allegedly unconstitutional statute (Florida's "Boom Box" law). The court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, holding that the Good Faith Exception to the exclusionary rule applied because law enforcement could not reasonably have known of the statute's constitutional invalidation just hours after the invalidating opinion was published.
The court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, holding that the Good Faith Exception to the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule applies and that the trial court did not err. A reasonably trained law enforcement officer could not have known of Catalano's holding just hours after its publication, and the Catalano opinion was not final until affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court over a year later.
[1] The Good Faith Exception to the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule applies when law enforcement officers act in reliance on a statute that is later declared unconstitutio…
[2] A law enforcement officer cannot reasonably be expected to know of a judicial holding invalidating a statute immediately upon its publication, especially when the decisio…
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“There is no way a reasonably trained law enforcement officer could have known, indeed should have known of the holding of that case.”
Establishes the basis for applying the Good Faith Exception—officers could not have had actual or constructive knowledge of the constitutional invalidity just hours after the opinion's publication.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's vehicle was stopped at 11:00 p.m. on May 11, 2011, based on alleged violations of section 316.3045, Florida Statutes (the "Boom Box" law).…
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 Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
Before POWELL, LAUTEN, and MIHOK, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT
Appellant appeals from an order denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence stemming from the stop of his vehicle based upon an alleged violation of section 316.3045, Florida Statutes, colloquially known as Florida’s “Boom Box” law. We dispense with oral argument pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 9.320, and affirm.2 of 3
Appellant argues that since section 316.3045 had been held constitutionally invalid at the time of the stop by the Second District Court of Appeal in State v. Catalano, 60 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), the stop was likewise invalid.
We agree with the State, however, and conclude that the Good Faith Exception1 to the 4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule applies to the facts of this case, and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion. The stop occurred at 11:00 p.m. on May 11, 2011, just a few hours after the Catalano opinion had been published that same day. There is no way a reasonably trained law enforcement officer could have known, indeed should have known of the holding of that case. Further, the Catalano court in its opinion certified to the Florida Supreme Court an issue of great public importance; thus its opinion was not final until it was affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court over a year later.2 State, 710 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), and it was not challenged again until Catalano.
AFFIRMED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this 20th day of March, 2013.
/S/
ROM W. POWELL Senior Judge
/S/
/S/
FREDERICK J. LAUTEN A. THOMAS MIHOK Circuit Judge Circuit Judge
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to James Steven Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, 435 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 400, Orlando, Florida 32801; Dugald McMillan, Assistant State Attorney, 415 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 200, Orlando, Florida 32802-1673, this 20th day of March, 2013.
/S/
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987)
- State v. Catalano, 104 So. 3d 1069 (Fla. 2012)
- Montgomery v. State, 69 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Reyneldon J. Davis v. State, 710 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- State v. Catalano, 60 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)