Pina v. State

Decided June 12, 1985

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1985-06-12

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Under the 1983 amendment to article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, does the exclusionary rule apply in probation revocation hearings?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 487 So. 2d 1055 - State v. Pina

Relies on 433 So. 2d 545 - Horvitz v. State · 463 So. 2d 1236 - Tamer v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-06-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 2006

5 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We reverse the appellant’s convictions and sentences on the authority of Horvitz v. State, 433 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) and Tamer v. State, 463 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The trial court erred in failing to grant the motion to suppress. We also certify the following question posed in Tameras one of great public importance:

Under the 1983 amendment to article 1, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, does the exclusionary rule apply in probation revocation hearings?

¶2Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accord herewith.

ANSTEAD, C.J., HURLEY, J., and SALMON, MICHAEL H„ Associate Judge, concur.