SHELTON SCARLET, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Shelton Scarlet appeals his probation revocation, challenging the trial court's admission of cocaine evidence obtained through an unlawful search. The court reverses, holding that the exclusionary rule applies to probation revocation hearings despite the U.S. Supreme Court's contrary ruling for parole revocations, because probation hearings are fundamentally different judicial proceedings.
Evidence obtained through an unlawful search is inadmissible in probation revocation hearings. The exclusionary rule applies to probation revocations even though it does not apply to parole revocations, because probation hearings are judicial proceedings under court jurisdiction that generally lead to sentencing hearings requiring appointed counsel, unlike administrative parole hearings.
[1] Evidence obtained through an unlawful search is inadmissible in a probation revocation hearing.
[2] Parole revocation hearings are administrative proceedings where the exclusionary rule is incompatible with flexible procedures.
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“Evidence discovered during an unlawful search is not admissible in a hearing to revoke probation.”
States the controlling legal principle that the exclusionary rule applies to probation revocation hearings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScarlet was placed on probation for one year for burglary of an occupied dwelling. He was charged with violating probation by trafficking in cocaine (…
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 Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a revocation of probation, arguing that the evidence admitted at his revocation hearing was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
Defendant was placed on probation for a term of one year for burglary of an occupied dwelling. An affidavit of violation of probation was filed charging defendant with committing the offense of trafficking in cocaine; failing to pay restitution; and failing to complete 100 hours of community service. The order of revocation of probation finds defendant guilty of all three violations.
The cocaine charge emanated from a traffic stop. On that charge, the trial court found the search to be without probable cause, without founded suspicion, and without a warrant or consent. Defendant alleged that the drugs were not his. At the probation violation hearing, however, the trial court admitted the seized cocaine on the ground that the exclusionary rule did not apply. The court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to 54 months in state prison; defendant appeals; we reverse.
The Florida Supreme Court has held that in the absence of a controlling federal decision directly on point, evidence obtained through an unlawful search is inadmissible in a probation revocation hearing. See State v. Cross, 487 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1986). Since then the United States Supreme Court has held that such evidence is admissible in parole revocation hearings. See Pennsylvania Parole Bd. v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 118 S.Ct. 2014, 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998). However, a parole hearing is substantively different, as it is not part of a criminal prosecution. A parole hearing is an administrative proceeding conducted by non-lawyers in a non-judicial setting; “traditional rules of evidence generally do not apply.” Id. at 366, 118 S.Ct. 2014. “The exclusionary rule, moreover, is incompatible with the traditionally flexible, administrative procedures of parole revocation.” Id. at 365, 118 S.Ct. 2014. Probation revocation hearings, however, are under the court’s jurisdiction and generally lead to sentencing hearings that require the appointment of counsel. See Floyd v. Parole and Probation Comm’n, 509 So. 2d 919 (Fla.1987). In short, parole revocation hearings and probation revocation hearings are very different proceedings.
Scott does not overturn Cross. Evidence discovered during an unlawful search is not admissible in a hearing to revoke probation. See Soca v. State, 673 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1996); Lawson v. State, 751 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
The State asked this court to certify this question to the Florida Supreme Court. We decline to do so, as the Florida Supreme Court has spoken so clearly on this matter. In sum, we reverse and remand for further proceedings, as it is not clear from the record that on the two remaining probation violation findings, the trial court would have revoked defendant’s probation or entered the same sentence. See Largaespado v. State, 658 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Shelton Scarlet, 800 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 2001)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Scarlet v. State, 766 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), which expressly and directly conflicts with Johnston v. State, 768 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The issue presented in this case is whether, in light of the United Stat…
-
Fla. Parole Comm'n v. Spaziano, 48 So. 3d 714 (Fla. 2010)…ination has nothing to do with the validity of the conviction or sentence. “A parole hearing is an administrative proceeding” and “it is not part of a criminal prosecution.” State v. Scarlet, 800 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla.2001) (quoting Scarlet v. State, 766 So. 2d 1110, 1110-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)). [*725] The majority here concludes, however, that because “challenges to the PPRD” are “analogous to collateral criminal proceedings” they “fall within the exception expressly set forth by the Legislature in section 57.…
-
Lambert v. State, 811 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…. State, 768 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The Third District, however, concluded that Scott did not overturn Cross and held that evidence discovered during an unlawful search is not ad7 missible in a hearing to revoke probation. Scarlet v. State, 766 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). This court, in Williams v. State, 791 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), agreed with the Third District’s decision in Scarlet. Recently, the Florida Supreme Court approved of the Third District’s decision in Scarlet and this court’s d…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1998)
- Soca v. State, 673 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1996)
- State v. Cross, 487 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1986)
- Floyd v. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 509 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1987)
- Lawson v. State, 751 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Largaespado v. State, 658 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)