MORT NORMAN KORAN, 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 affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant was properly informed of his constitutional rights and voluntarily consented to a search. The court also found that evidence obtained through electronic recording devices was admissible.
No, the defendant's constitutional rights were not violated. He was properly informed of his rights, freely consented to the search, and the electronic evidence was admissible.
“The record discloses that defendant was sufficiently informed of his constitutional rights after being taken into custody and prior to interrogation, and that the defendant freely and intelligently gave unequivocal and specific consent to the search of his premises.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the defendant's awareness of rights and consent to search.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was taken into custody and interrogated. Following this, his premises were searched, and evidence was obtained through electronic record…
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 Consent To Search cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed. The record discloses that defendant was sufficiently informed of his constitutional rights after being taken into custody and prior to interrogation, and that the defendant freely and intelligently gave unequivocal and specific consent to the search of his premises. The evidence obtained through such interrogation and search was properly admissible. The tape recording evidence obtained from the use of electronic transmitting and recording devices was not obtained in violation of any of defendant’s constitutional rights nor was such evidence obtained in violation of any state or federal statute, and was therefore properly admitted. Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Lopez v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462; Rathbun v. United States, 1957, 355 U.S. 107, 78 S.Ct. 161, 2 L.Ed.2d 134; On Lee v. United State, 1952, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270; Koran v. State, Fla. App.1968, 213 So.2d 735; Hajdu v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 230; Barber v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 857; Gomien v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 511.
WALDEN, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1963)
- On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1952)
- Rathbun v. United States, 355 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1957)
- Gomien v. State, 172 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Mortimer Norman Koran v. State, 213 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Hajdu v. State, 189 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Barber v. State, 172 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)