STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH S. MILO, APPELLEE
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 court held that the willful and intentional destruction of evidence by the state warrants dismissal of charges.
Milo reported his wife's mental health issues, leading to an altercation with an officer. The officer later influenced a witness to alter a statement …
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 Destruction Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case began when appellee Milo asked a convenience store clerk to call the police because his “wife” was mentally ill and was trying to run in front of cars. An officer arrived, and during his efforts to control the situation, a three-way altercation erupted between Milo, the officer, and the alleged wife.
Milo was arrested for battery of a police officer; the wife for resisting arrest. A disinterested witness gave the police a signed, written statement about the incident. When Milo was being processed, he said he wanted to press charges for the officer striking the wife. The officer then returned to the scene and asked the witness to sign a different statement. The witness testified the officer said the first statement was overly harsh on him. The officer asked him to delete the statement that he had twisted the woman’s arm and dragged her from the car and to add the statement that the officer had only pulled on her coat. The officer also told the witness that the first statement had been too thorough and detailed about the woman’s past mental health. After obtaining this second statement, the officer destroyed the first statement.
Willful, intentional destruction of evidence requires sanctions. Bad faith destruction of evidence requires dismissal of the charges. Louissaint v. State, 576 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Here, the first statement was destroyed, and another different statement was created. Such conduct by the state warrants the ultimate sanction.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ„ and POUND, F., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cricket Kathleen Toole v. State, 270 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…5) (citing § 772.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2012) ). See supra note 18 and accompanying text. See supra note 11 and accompanying text. See supra note 17 and accompanying text. Glaubius , 688 So. 2d at 916. Fla. Stat. § 90.804(f) (2014). State v. Milo, 596 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) ("Willful, intentional destruction of evidence requires sanctions. Bad faith destruction of evidence requires dismissal of the charges." (citing Louissaint v. State, 576 So. 2d 316 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) ) ). See…
Authorities Cited
- Louissaint v. State, 576 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)