Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

531 So. 2d 1034

531 So.2d 1034

13 Fla.L.Weekly 2270

Labrada v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 4, 1988

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-10-04

Relies on United States v. Leon · Inanc v. Schreckengost · MacHado v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-10-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2009

14 state decisions

60198819902000decided

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.

¶1The five appellants in this case were charged with various violations of the lottery statutes and entered pleas of nolo contendere pursuant to a negotiated agreement with the state. The appellants specifically reserved their right to appeal the trial court’s denial of their motions to suppress evidence obtained from searches of two residences. The parties stipulated, and the trial court agreed, that the motions to suppress were dispositive of the case. The gravamen of the appeal concerns the alleged deficiency of the affidavits submitted by the investigating police officers m support of their application for search warrants. The appellants claim that the affidavits failed to provide the requisite probable cause to support the trial court’s issuance of the search warrants. Having carefully reviewed each of the lengthy, detailed affidavits, we conclude that they satisfy the standard established by this court in Machado v. State, 363 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 459 (Fla.1979). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motions to suppress and affirm the convictions and sentences entered upon the appellants’ pleas. Our finding that the trial court correctly denied the motions to suppress on the merits obviates the need for us to address appellants’ alternative argument that the good faith exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), does not pertain to this case.

¶2AFFIRMED.

/531/so2d/1034 · .json · Public domain