JOSE CASTELL, 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.
Court reversed robbery and firearm convictions where evidence was discovered during an illegal protective sweep of motel rooms, remanding to determine whether subsequent confession and consent were independent of the constitutional violation.
A protective sweep of jointly-occupied motel rooms was illegal, requiring reversal of convictions and remand to determine whether subsequent confession and consent were independent of the constitutional violation.
[1] A protective sweep of jointly-occupied residential premises conducted without proper Fourth Amendment justification renders evidence discovered therein subject to suppres…
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 intelligenceJose Castell and Luis Orlando Vasquez were charged with armed robbery. Evidence linking Castell to the crimes was discovered during a protective sweep…
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 Chain Of Illegality cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
Jose Castell appeals judgments for robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Mr. Castell entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges, reserving the right to appeal an order denying his dispositive motion to suppress the physical evidence linking him to these crimes. The evidence was discovered during a protective sweep of a suite of motel rooms occupied jointly by Mr. Castell and Luis Orlando Vasquez. Both men were charged with armed robbery, and both filed motions to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of the protective sweep. The cases were consolidated before the circuit court for the purpose of holding an evidentiary hearing on the motions, and the circuit court denied both motions. As we did in Mr. Vasquez’s case, Vasquez v. State, 870 So. 2d 26, 2003 WL 22103523 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept.12, 2003), we conclude that the protective sweep of the residence was illegal and we therefore reverse Mr. Castell’s convictions. We remand this case to allow the circuit court to consider whether there was clear and convincing evidence of an unequivocal break in the chain of illegality after the protective sweep was performed, thus rendering a subsequent confession and subsequent consents to enter the motel residence voluntary.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
FULMER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vasquez v. State, 870 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…tive sweep indicated that Mr. Vasquez did not specifically consent to a search of the motel rooms during this discussion. . Mr. Castell has also appealed his convictions. By separate opinion, we reverse and remand his convictions. Castell v. State, 870 So. 2d 38, 2003 WL 22103532 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 12, 2003).…
Authorities Cited
- Haliburton v. State, 870 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Vasquez v. State, 870 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)