Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

584 So. 2d 656

State v. Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 11, 1991

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1991-09-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1992

1 state decisions

Relies on Florida v. Bostick · Bostick v. State · 585 So. 2d 1096 - State v. Kuntzwiler

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-09-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We remand for further evidentiary proceedings in accordance with Florida v. Bostick, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). The trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to suppress contained no factual findings regarding the circumstances of the search. Rather, the trial court explicitly based its ruling on the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Bostick v. State, 554 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1989), that the Broward Sheriff’s Office practice of boarding buses and asking passengers at random for consent to search was unconstitutional per se. In view of the United States Supreme Court’s rejection of this per se rule, we remand so that the trial court may determine whether a seizure in fact did occur considering “all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter.” Bostick, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. at 2389, 115 L.Ed.2d at -.

DELL and GARRETT, JJ., concur. GLICKSTEIN, C.J., concurs specially with opinion.
GLICKSTEIN, Chief Judge,

¶2concurring specially.

¶3I concur out of obligation and refer the reader to my special concurrence in State v. Kuntzwiler, 585 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

/584/so2d/656 · .json · Public domain