ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The exclusionary rule is applicable in probation revocation proceedings, even in light of Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott.
The county court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained from an illegal stop, concluding the exclusionary rule did not apply to probation revoc…
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 Exclusionary Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Robert Lee Williams appeals from the revocation of his probation by the county court. That court certified a question of great public importance to this court. Williams specifically challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. We reverse.
The county court denied the motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained as a result of an admittedly illegal stop. The stop was conducted by an officer who was not Williams’ probation officer but who, at the time of the stop, knew that Williams was on probation. The county-court denied the motion concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 118 S.Ct. 2014, 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998), precluded the application of the exclusionary rule in probation revocation proceedings. As did the Third District in Scarlet v. State, 766 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), review granted, SC00-2135, 786 So. 2d 580 (Fla. Mar. 6, 2001), we hold that the exclusionary rule is applicable in a revocation of probation proceeding.
We decline to follow that portion of the Fourth District’s opinion in Johnston v. State, 768 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA), cause dismissed, SC00-2442, — So. 2d — (Fla. Dec. 12, 2000), which, based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott, suggests that the exclusionary rule would be inapplicable in probation revocation proceedings. Because it appears that the Fourth District’s ruling may be dicta, we certify the following question as a matter of great public importance:
IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357, 118 S.Ct. 2014, 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998), DOES THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT APPLY TO PROBATION REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS?
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (SENIOR) Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Shelton Scarlet, 800 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 2001)…a. 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. 766 So. 2d at 1110-11. More recently, in Williams v. State, 791 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), the Second District followed Scarlet and held that the exclusionary rule is applicable in a probation revocation [*222] healing, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott. We have considered but decline to revisit ou…
-
Lambert v. State, 811 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…er, 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 decision in Williams, concluding that Scott does not preclude the app…
-
Lanier v. State, 936 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ence discovered during an unlawful detention and search is not admissible during a hearing to revoke probation. State v. Scarlet, 800 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla.2001) (quoting Scarlet v. State, 766 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)); Williams v. State, 791 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). However, because we have found that La-nier’s detention was lawful, the evidence concerning the new law offenses was properly considered by the court and supports the revocation of Lanier’s probation based on a violation of c…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Shelton Scarlet v. State, 766 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Davis v. State, 768 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Johnston v. State, 768 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)