STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS WILLIAM JONES, BRIAN DOUGLAS GOFF, AND TIMOTHY JOHN SINNOTT, APPELLEES
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 Florida District Court of Appeal denied a motion to dismiss the State's appeal from an order suppressing evidence. The court found no merit in the defendants' arguments that the State's unilateral right to appeal violated their due process and equal protection rights.
No, the statute does not violate the defendants' constitutional rights. The court found the defendants' contentions to be without substantial merit.
“The defendants-appellees have moved to dismiss an appeal taken by the State of Florida pursuant to § 924.071 Fla.Stat. F.S.A. from an order suppressing a quantity of marijuana found in the possession of the defendants.”
This quote establishes the procedural posture of the case and the basis for the defendants' motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida appealed an order suppressing marijuana found in the possession of the defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the appeal, ar…
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 Equal Protection Of The Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants-appellees have moved to dismiss an appeal taken by the State of Florida pursuant to § 924.071 Fla.Stat. F.S.A. from an order suppressing a quantity of marijuana found in the possession of the defendants.
It is the appellees’ contentions that the appeal should be dismissed because § 924.-071, supra, accords the State of Florida unilateral right to prosecute a pretrial appeal from an order “quashing the search warrant or suppressing evidence obtained by search and seizure or suppressing a confession or admission made by the defendant”. Appellees argue that in conferring said right upon the State of Florida, but not upon the defendant, the state denies to the defendant due process of law, equal protection of the law and the right to a speedy trial.
We find appellees’ contentions to be without substantial merit; therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Denied.