District Court of Appeal Reverses Trial Court s Denial of Defendant s Motion to Suppress in Drug Cas

District Court Of Appeal Reverses Trial Court S Denial Of Defendant S Motion To Suppress In Drug Cas

The Fourth District Courtof Appeal found thatgiven the totality of ...More
The Fourth District Courtof Appeal found thatgiven the totality of thecircumstances, the policeofficer"seized"defendant as soon as theofficer parked"catty corner"to the defendant's car,activated his emergencyoverhead lights, and useda spotlight to light upthe defendant's SUV. Less

District Court of Appeal Reverses Trial Court s Denial of Defendant s Motion to Suppress in Drug Cas

to get instant updates about 'District Court Of Appeal Reverses Trial Court S Denial Of Defendant S Motion To Suppress In Drug Cas' on your MyPage. Meet other similar minded people. Its Free!

X 

All Updates


Overview:
The District Court found that given the totality of the circumstances, the officer "seized" the defendant when the police officer parked "catty corner" to the defendant's car, activated his emergency overhead lights, & used a spotlight to illuminate the defendant's SUV.
Description:

In the case of Smith vs. State, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held as follows:

The District Court reversed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress in a matter concerning possession of cocaine as well as misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The officer saw an SUV parked in front of a vacant lot inside a residential area at approximately 2:30 a.m. with its lights off and a person seated in the driver's seat. Though the officer saw no criminal activity, the officer turned on his overhead emergency lights, lit up the inside of the SUV with his spotlight, and approached the SUV to check it out. On nearing the automobile, the officer smelled marijuana and then saw contraband while talking to the driver, which led to defendant's arrest. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that given the totality of the circumstances, the officer "seized" the defendant at what time the police officer parked "catty corner" to defendant's automobile, activated his emergency overhead lights, and used a spotlight to light up the defendant's SUV. Since the officer had no reasonable suspicion to "seize" defendant before the officer detected the odor of marijuana, the 4th District Court of Appeal reversed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress & remanded the matter to vacate the defendant's convictions.

This case summary is provided by criminal defense attorneys Michael Dye and Daniel Rosenberg. For more information, please visit the firms' websites by clicking on the following links. For Michael Dye: criminal lawyer For Daniel Rosenberg: criminal defense attorney

No feeds found

All
Posting your question. Please wait!...


About

The Fourth District Court of Appeal found that given the totality of the circumstances, the police officer "seized" defendant as soon as the officer parked "catty corner" to the defendant's car, activated his emergency overhead lights, and used a spotlight to light up the defendant's SUV.
No messages found
Suggested Pages
Tell your friends >
about this page
 Create a new Page
for companies, colleges, celebrities or anything you like.Get updates on MyPage.
Create a new Page
 Find your friends
  Find friends on MyPage from