Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

638 So. 2d 513

638 So.2d 513

19 Fla.L.WeeklySupp. 312

Hunter v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 9, 1994

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1994-06-09

Relies on Lee v. Gray Cab Co. · 635 So. 2d 11 - Hennis v. State · Clifford v. Mile Marker 82 Ltd. Partnership

Decided 1994-06-09

PER CURIAM.

¶1We review State v. Hunter, 623 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The district court certified this question as one of great public importance:

WHETHER THE MANUFACTURE OF CRACK COCAINE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS FOR USE IN A REVERSE-STING OPERATION CONSTITUTES GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT WHICH VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, WHERE THE CHARGE IS SOLICITATION TO PURCHASE, I.E., WHETHER MET-CALF V. STATE, 614 S0.2D 648 (FLA. 4TH DCA 1993), IS CORRECT?

¶2We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

¶3We recently resolved this issue in Metcalf v. State, 635 So.2d 11 (Fla.1994), where we found a due process violation when police used illegally manufactured drugs in a reverse-sting operation. On authority of Met-calf we quash the decision under review. We answer the first part of the certified question in the affirmative. We answer the second part — whether Metcalf v. State, 614 So.2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), is correct — in the negative.

¶4Given our resolution of the certified question, we decline to address the second issue Hunter raises.

¶5It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.MeDONALD, Senior Justice, dissents.
/638/so2d/513 · .json · Public domain