JESUS I. VALDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the Department of Revenue's tax assessment against Valdez for unlawful cocaine transportation, holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to administrative tax proceedings absent egregious Fourth Amendment violations.
The exclusionary rule does not apply in administrative tax proceedings challenging a civil tax assessment under section 212.0505, Florida Statutes, unless the underlying search involved egregious Fourth Amendment violations that transgress fundamental fairness.
[1] The exclusionary rule does not apply in administrative tax proceedings under section 212.0505, Florida Statutes, unless the search violated the Fourth Amendment in an egr…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJesus Valdez was assessed a civil tax by the Department of Revenue under section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1988), based on the unlawful transportati…
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 Fundamental Fairness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We are called to evaluate the final order of the Department of Revenue sustaining a civil tax assessment against Jesus Valdez under the provisions of section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1988), on the unlawful transportation of approximately 90 kilograms of cocaine. The issue raised is whether the Department erred in concluding that the exclusionary rule did not apply in the instant administrative proceedings challenging the tax assessment. Although the exclusionary rule is generally inapplicable to such collateral civil proceedings, United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 96 S.Ct. 3021, 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976); Tirado v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 689 F. 2d 307 (2d Cir.1982), a narrow exception to this rule may be found under circumstances involving “egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might transgress notions of fundamental fairness and undermine the probative value of the evidence obtained” [footnote omitted]. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050-51, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 3489, 82 L.Ed.2d 778, 793 (1984); see also Adamson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 745 F. 2d 541 (9th Cir.1984). However, the facts as referenced in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in United States v. Valdez, 931 F. 2d 1448 (11th Cir.1991), and in the Department’s final order do not transgress the narrow exception articulated in either Lopez-Mendoza or Adamson.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and WOLF, JJ., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles & Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n, 681 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Valdez v. Department of Revenue, 622 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). ERVIN, KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Aki v. DHSMV (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2010)
-
Sherwood v. DHSMV (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2010)
Previewing 3 of 4 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. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1976)
- Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1984)
- Jacque Tirado v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 689 F.2d 307 (2d Cir. 1982)
- Adamson v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 745 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1984)
- United States v. Valdez, 931 F.2d 1448 (11th Cir. 1991)