STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
CURTIS SHEFFIELD, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1993-07-01
No. 80202
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur., McDONALD, J., dissents.
623 So. 2d 469 Florida Supreme Court (1993)

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.


Holding

Governmental misconduct, specifically the illegal manufacture of crack cocaine by law enforcement for reverse stings near schools, violates due process and shields those involved from criminal liability.


Facts & Procedural History

Law enforcement illegally manufactured crack cocaine for a reverse sting operation within 1000 feet of a school. The Fourth District Court of Appeal c…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Sheffield v. State, 599 So. 2d 1057, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the same question that it certified in Williams v. State, 593 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In Williams, the court certified the following question:

DOES THE SOURCE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL TO CONDUCT REVERSE STINGS CONSTITUTIONALLY SHIELD THOSE WHO BECOME ILLICITLY INVOLVED WITH SUCH DRUGS FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY?

593 So. 2d at 1064. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.

We addressed this issue in State v. Williams, 623 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1993), where we held

that the illegal manufacture of crack cocaine by law enforcement officials for use in a reverse-sting operation within 1000 feet of a school constitutes governmental misconduct which violates the due process clause of the Florida Constitution.

623 So. 2d at 463. Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court below.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. McDONALD, J., dissents.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw