ROBERT DION BEASLEY, 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 court reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence because the state failed to establish that the officer had any objective reasonable basis to believe the appellant had committed a traffic infraction when making the stop.
When no search warrant is issued, the state must demonstrate at a suppression hearing that evidence was lawfully obtained, and failure to establish an objective reasonable basis for a traffic stop requires reversal of the denial of a motion to suppress.
[1] When no search warrant is issued, the state bears the burden of establishing at a suppression hearing that evidence was lawfully obtained, and failure to demonstrate an o…
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 intelligence“the state was obliged at the suppression hearing to demonstrate that the evidence sought to be suppressed was lawfully obtained”
Establishing the state's burden when no search warrant is issued
Appellant was stopped for a purported traffic infraction, and evidence was seized as a result of that stop. The state conceded at the suppression hear…
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 Warrantless Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as the result of a stop for a purported traffic infraction. Because no search warrant was issued, the state was obliged at the suppression hearing to demonstrate that the evidence sought to be suppressed was lawfully obtained. See State v. Setzler, 667 So. 2d 343, 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In its brief, the state concedes that it failed to establish at the suppression hearing that the officer had any objective reasonable basis to believe that appellant had committed a traffic infraction when he made the stop. We agree. See United States v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F. 3d 1271 (11th Cir.2003). Accordingly, because the state failed to carry its burden, it was error to deny the motion to suppress. Because it is apparent that our holding is dispositive, we are constrained to reverse and remand with directions that the “Disposition Order” entered by the trial court following appellant’s conditional guilty plea be vacated, and that appellant be discharged. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i); Fernandez v. State, 917 So. 2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Lyons (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2011)…shall be denied . . . .” A defendant must plead sufficient facts in his motion to establish there was an illegal search. State v. Lyons, 293 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); State v. Hinton, 305 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). 2 See Beasley v. State, 939 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). 3 See U.S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974); Hinton, 305 So. 2d at 804. 4 See Hinton, 305 So. 2d at 804. 5 It is well settled that hearsay evidence is admissible in a motion to suppress hearing, even though the witness is avai…
-
See Mann v. State (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2010)…burden then shifts to and remains with the State to show its validity. See Mann v. State, 292 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Filmon v. State, 336 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1976) (dissent); Palmer v. State, 753 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Beasley v. State, 939 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Since the trial judge misallocated the burden of proof, and the State failed to establish the legality of the stop, the denial of Appellant’s dispositive motion to suppress was error2. Consequently, appellant’s conviction is RE…
-
Hudson v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Setzler, 667 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- United States v. Chittakone Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2003)
- Fernandez v. State, 917 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)