From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laster v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 12, 2006
933 So. 2d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Opinion

No. 2D05-524.

May 12, 2006.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ralph C. Stoddard and Rex Martin Barbas, Judges.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Alisa Smith, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Jeffrey Laster entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of delivery of cocaine and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress. We affirm.

We hold that the search of Laster's person was consistent with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution but was unlawful under the Florida Strip Search statute, section 901.211, Florida Statutes (2003). However, as we held in Jenkins v. State, 924 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), Laster is not entitled to have the fruits of the search suppressed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, the sentence, and the denial of the motion to suppress.

As in Jenkins, we certify that our decision is in direct conflict with D.F. v. State, 682 So.2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Affirmed; conflict certified.

KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Laster v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 12, 2006
933 So. 2d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
Case details for

Laster v. State

Case Details

Full title:Jeffrey LASTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: May 12, 2006

Citations

933 So. 2d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Citing Cases

Rumore v. State

However, Mr. Rumore is not entitled to have the fruits of the search suppressed because the exclusionary rule…