Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

658 So. 2d 173

Docket No. 93-2524.

Taylor v. State

James TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 21, 1995.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1995-07-21

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The search which followed, without a showing of an unequivocal break in the chain of illegality (the improper seizure), even if consent was given was invalid.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 790 So. 2d 485 - Hilgeman v. State

Relies on 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · 379 So. 2d 643 - Norman v. State · Folsom v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-07-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2010

8 state decisions

40199520002010decided

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 →

¶1James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mark S. Dunn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4James Taylor was parked (he was actually in his vehicle with the motor running) in a private driveway behind an apartment complex. As he was about to leave, a police officer pulled up behind him, approached his vehicle, and ordered him to turn off his motor and give him his driver's license. The officer's conduct, without even a suspicion that a crime was being or had been committed, was an improper seizure of Mr. Taylor. The search which followed, without a showing of an unequivocal break in the chain of illegality (the improper seizure), even if consent was given, was invalid. See Norman v. State,379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Paul,638 So.2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), rev. denied,654 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1995). The motion to suppress should have been granted.

¶5Given the foregoing, we need not decide whether the trial court's error in allowing the state to compel the defendant as a witness at the suppression hearing was harmless per State v. DiGuilio,491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), as contended by the state.

¶6*174 REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to discharge the defendant.

¶7COBB, HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

/658/so2d/173 · .json · Public domain