STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BLAKE JONES, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of suppression for physical evidence obtained after an illegal detention, while affirming suppression of statements made during that detention.
Physical evidence obtained following an illegal detention must be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment, even though statements made during the detention were properly suppressed.
[1] Physical evidence obtained as a result of an illegal detention must be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment, applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
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“a seizure occurs when, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would not believe that he was free to leave”
Defining when a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs for purposes of suppression analysis
Blake Jones was detained during a traffic stop, and both statements and physical evidence were obtained during and after that detention.…
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 Unlawful Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
On direct appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s order on a motion to suppress to the extent that the order granted Blake Jones’ request to suppress his statements. On cross-appeal, Jones challenges the trial court’s order on the motion to suppress to the extent that the order denied his request to suppress all physical evidence recovered. We hold that the trial court erred in partially denying Jones’ motion to suppress because the statements were made and the physical evidence was gathered after an illegal detention that occurred at the beginning of the stop. See Neeley v. State, 112 So.3d 764, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Johnson v. State, 995 So.2d 1011, 1013-14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Leroy v. State, 982 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a seizure occurs when, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would not believe that he was free to leave). We, therefore, reverse *1228the trial court’s order to the extent that it denied the motion to suppress the physical evidence; we affirm the portion of the order that granted the motion to suppress the statements; and we remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED.CJ1
ROWE, MARSTILLER, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leroy v. State, 982 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Johnson v. State, 995 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Martinez v. State, 995 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Neeley v. State, 112 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)