GLENN RICHARD SHIPP, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule Of Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
We have reviewed the record and briefs in this case and we find the judgment and sentence appealed from must be reversed.
The search giving rise to the incriminating evidence upon which appellant was convicted was an unlawful search and thus the trial court should have granted appellant’s motion to suppress said evidence. We note in passing that we have recently affirmed a revocation of appellant’s probation based upon the very evidence we now hold must be suppressed. Lest we be charged with inconsistency, we point out that the tainted evidence is not subject to the rule of exclusion in probation revocation proceedings. Thus, that evidence could be considered by the trial judge in that administrative proceeding, but not in a criminal prosecution for the new offense. Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1976).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the appellant’s motion to suppress and for appropriate further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.
MAGER and CROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Dodd, 396 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ourselves required to follow that decision, Grubbs and therefore this opinion as well appear to be contrary to Croteau, which Grubbs cites but does not overrule, and to the appellate decisions which followed Cro-teau prior to Grubbs. Shipp v. State, 349 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) and Latham v. State, 360 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Therefore, to permit employment of the supreme court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), we “expressly” state that this opinion, while in ac…1 / 2
-
Nicolaas Mathias Huppertz v. State, 399 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ession on the subject. As we did in Dodd, however, we expressly state that this decision is in direct conflict with the earlier supreme court decision in Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1976), and certify a direct conflict with Shipp v. State, 349 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) and Latham v. State, 360 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Reversed. .Three other violations which were alleged in the affidavit were expressly abandoned by the state at the hearing. Their inclusion in the order of revocation was…
-
Lavazzoli v. State, 408 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…earlier opinion to add the following paragraph: “Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(vi), we certify that this decision is in direct conflict with Latham v. State, 360 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Shipp v. State, 349 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).”…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1976)