¶1Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
¶2Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and, Douglas J. Glaid, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
¶3Before WELLS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, J., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
¶4PER CURIAM.
¶5Affirmed.
¶6WELLS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, J., concur.
¶7SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge (dissenting).
¶8In my view, the confession which was the most significant aspect of the prosecution's case, should have been suppressed as the product of an unlawful, non-consensual confinement, that is, an arrest, which was not supported by probable cause. See Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983), affirming Royer v. State, 389 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ladson v. State, 63 So.3d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Schwartz, Senior J. dissenting); B.S. v. State, 548 So.2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Taylor v. State, 355 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
¶9Affirmed.
¶10WELLS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, J., concur.
¶11(dissenting).
¶12In my view, the confession which was the most significant aspect of the prosecution’s case, should have been suppressed as the product of an unlawful, non-consensual confinement, that is, an arrest, which was not supported by probable cause. See Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983), affirming Royer v. State, 389 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ladson v. State, 63 So.3d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Schwartz, Senior J. dissenting); B.S. v. State, 548 So.2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Taylor v. State, 355 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).