THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
KATIE BUTLER BROWN, 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's appellate court reversed a suppression order, holding that the loss of evidence after lawful seizure does not invalidate the seizure itself and does not warrant suppression at the motion-to-suppress stage.
The loss or theft of evidence after lawful seizure does not constitute grounds for suppressing evidence on a motion to suppress, as the motion addresses only the validity of the seizure, not the admissibility of the evidence.
[1] A motion to suppress addresses only the validity of the seizure, not the admissibility of evidence; loss or theft of evidence after lawful seizure does not warrant suppre…
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 only question before the court on a motion to suppress is the validity of the seizure.”
The court distinguishes between the inquiry on a motion to suppress and the inquiry at trial regarding admissibility.
The defendant was apprehended and evidence was seized from her, but some of the seized evidence was stolen from the legal custodian before the trial c…
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 Chain Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal by the State from an order granting a motion to suppress. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, it was apparent that the evidence adduced was not all that was actually seized from the defendant at the time she was apprehended, some of the evidence having been stolen from the legal custodian pending the trial court proceedings.
We find that the trial court committed error in suppressing the evidence because all of it was not present at the hearing. While this might be a good ground for denying its admission into evidence at the time it is offered [Deeb v. State, 131 Fla. 362, 179 So. 894; North v. State, Fla.1966, 65 So.2d 77; Watson v. State, Fla.1966, 190 So.2d 161; Wincor v. State, Fla.App., 212 So.2d 42; Stunson v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 294], it is not a ground for suppressing the evidence which was legally seized. The inquiry on a motion to suppress is different than the inquiry at the time of trial as to the admissibility of the evidence. The only question before the court on a motion to suppress is the validity of the seizure. Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770, 114 So. 534. Objections that go to admissibility are to be present at the time the evidence is tendered.
Therefore, the order here under review be and the same is hereby reversed, with directions to the trial court to proceed with the trial of the matter.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marion v. State, 287 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…pon similar fact evidence in circumstances where such evidence has, at the most, “borderline” relevancy. See for example Davis v. State, supra; Green v. State, supra; Simmons v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1973, 271 So. 2d 464; State v. Brown, Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 263. The basic purpose of and the historic development behind the rule relating to the admissibility of similar fact evidence is fully and lucidly set forth in Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 654; see also Green v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2…
-
State v. Byrne, 311 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…. 2d 111. We find no merit in appellee’s argument that the issue here involved was resolved as a matter of law by our prior decision. The only question before the Court on a motion to suppress evidence is the validity of its seizure. State v. Brown, 257 So. 2d 263 (3rd D.C.A.1973). [*766] Appellee’s reliance upon our decision in Kishel v. State, Fla.App., 287 So. 2d 414 (1974) is misplaced. In that case, Kishel’s arrest was predicated entirely upon an illegal search. In the case sub ju-dice the arrest was'gro…
-
State v. Selah FOX (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…to suppress. This was clearly error as “[t]he only question before the court on a motion to suppress is the validity of the seizure. Objections that go to admissibility are to be present[ed] at the time the evidence is tendered.” State v. Brown, 257 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (internal citation omitted). Thus, the admissibility of the evidence relating to Fox’s field sobriety exercises was irrelevant to the court’s inquiry on the motion to suppress. See id. Nevertheless, we are compelled to aff…
Authorities Cited
- Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770 (Fla. 1927)
- North v. State, 65 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1953)
- Deeb v. State, 131 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1937)
- Stunson v. State, 228 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Watson v. State, 190 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1966)
- Douglas v. State, 212 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)