JEFFREY LASTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Suppress cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Jeffrey Laster entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of delivery of cocaine and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress. We affirm.
We hold that the search of Laster’s person was consistent with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution but was unlawful under the Florida Strip Search statute, section 901.211, Florida Statutes (2003). However, as we held in Jenkins v. State, 924 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), Laster is not entitled to have the fruits of the search suppressed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, the sentence, and the denial of the motion to suppress.
As in Jenkins, we certify that our decision is in direct conflict with D.F. v. State, 682 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Affirmed; conflict certified.
KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rumore v. State, 969 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…awful under section 901.211, Florida Statutes (2005). However, Mr. Rumore is not entitled to have the fruits of the search suppressed because the exclusionary rule is inapplicable in the context of violations of section 901.211. See Laster v. State, 933 So. 2d 41, 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Jenkins v. State, 924 So. 2d 20, 33-34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), review granted, 944 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2006). Because the trial court correctly denied Mr. Rumore’s motion to suppress, we affirm his judgments and sentences as well as…
Authorities Cited
- D.F. v. State, 682 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Jenkins v. State, 924 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)