From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 25, 2001
791 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. 2D00-4591.

May 25, 2001.

Appeal from the County Court for Hillsborough County; Manuel A. Lopez, County Judge.

Craig A. Huffman, Tampa, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Robert Lee Williams appeals from the revocation of his probation by the county court. That court certified a question of great public importance to this court. Williams specifically challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. We reverse.

The county court denied the motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained as a result of an admittedly illegal stop. The stop was conducted by an officer who was not Williams' probation officer but who, at the time of the stop, knew that Williams was on probation. The county court denied the motion concluding that the United States Supreme Court's decision inPennsylvania Board of Probation Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998), precluded the application of the exclusionary rule in probation revocation proceedings. As did the Third District in Scarlet v. State, 766 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), review granted, SC00-2135, ___ So.2d ___, (Fla. Mar. 6, 2001), we hold that the exclusionary rule is applicable in a revocation of probation proceeding.

We decline to follow that portion of the Fourth District's opinion inJohnston v. State, 768 So.2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA), cause dismissed, SC00-2442, ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. Dec. 12, 2000), which, based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Scott, suggests that the exclusionary rule would be inapplicable in probation revocation proceedings. Because it appears that the Fourth District's ruling may be dicta, we certify the following question as a matter of great public importance:

IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998), DOES THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT APPLY TO PROBATION REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS?

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (SENIOR) JUDGE, Concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 25, 2001
791 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:Robert Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: May 25, 2001

Citations

791 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

Wallace v. State

Thus "evidence discovered during an unlawful detention and search is not admissible during a hearing to…

Walker v. State

In addition, the exclusionary rule has been held to apply in probation revocation proceedings. See State v.…