CHRISTOPHER SZABO, 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.
Christopher Szabo appeals his probation revocation based on a DUI arrest where evidence was suppressed in the underlying criminal case. The court reverses, holding that the exclusionary rule applies to probation revocation proceedings in Florida, contrary to the trial court's reliance on a federal parole case.
The exclusionary rule applies to probation revocation proceedings in Florida. The trial court erred in denying Szabo's motion to dismiss the probation violation allegations based on the suppressed evidence. The case is reversed and remanded for determination of whether probation should be reinstated.
[1] The exclusionary rule applies to probation revocation proceedings.
[2] Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be used in a probation revocation hearing.
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“Because we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to apply the exclusionary rule in this revocation of probation proceeding, we reverse.”
Statement of the court's holding that the exclusionary rule must apply to probation revocation proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSzabo was originally sentenced to 15 years in prison with 14 years suspended, followed by 5 years of probation. He was arrested for DUI, and the count…
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 Illegal Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
Christopher Szabo appeals from his judgment and sentence for burglary entered upon revocation of probation and argues that the exclusionary rule required the dismissal of the probation violation allegations. Szabo entered a plea to the violation of probation but specifically reserved his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. Because we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to apply the exclusionary rule in this revocation of probation proceeding, we reverse.
Szabo had been sentenced originally to fifteen years in prison with fourteen years suspended, to be followed by five years of probation. An affidavit of violation of probation was filed against Szabo, alleging a violation of condition 8, which states: “You will live and remain at liberty without violating any law. A conviction in a court of law shall not be necessary in order for such a violation to constitute a violation of Probation/Community Control.” The affidavit stated that Szabo violated probation by being arrested for the misdemeanor crime of DUI.
Szabo moved to dismiss the allegations that he had committed a violation of probation based upon the fact that the county court in which the DUI charge was filed had suppressed the evidence, finding the stop of Szabo’s vehicle was illegal and that the resulting search and seizure was unreasonable. The trial court denied Szabo’s motion to dismiss and held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to probationary hearings based on Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 118 S.Ct. 2014, 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998).
In State v. Scarlet, 800 So. 2d 220 (Fla.2001), the Florida Supreme Court distinguished Scott because Scott involved parole, rather than probation, proceedings. The Scarlet court held that Scott did not preclude the use of the exclusionary rule in probation revocation proceedings. Therefore, based on Scarlet, we reverse Szabo’s judgment and sentence entered upon revocation of probation and the trial court order denying his motion to dismiss. We direct that Szabo be released from prison and returned to the trial court for the trial court to determine whether Szabo’s probation should be reinstated for any time that may remain on his probationary sentence.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fortune v. Gulf Coast Tree Care Inc./Florida Citrus Bus. & Indus., 148 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…. 2d 511, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). “A basic tenet of statutory interpretation is that a ‘statute should be interpreted to give effect to every clause in it, and to accord meaning and harmony to all of its parts.’ ” Jones v. ETS of New Orleans, Inc., 798 So. 2d 912, 914-15 (Fla.2001) (citing Acosta v. Richter, 671 So. 2d 149, 153-54 (Fla.1996)). Here, the relevant section is 440.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2010): [*829] If the employer fails to provide initial treatment or care required by this section after r…
-
Watrous v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…Watrous's First Amendment rights. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Watrous's motion to dismiss and Mr. Watrous's judgment and sentence for violating Fort Myers, Fla., Fort Myers City Code, ch. 54, § 54-297 (2019). See Szabo v. State, 798 So. 2d 912, 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Reversed. KELLY and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.…
Authorities Cited
- Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1998)
- State v. Shelton Scarlet, 800 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 2001)