FL4: Suppression of arrest exceeded the relief def sought and is reversed

Defendant’s motion to suppress did not put the state on notice that he was seeking to suppress the result of his arrest. The trial court erred in granting that relief. State v. Bender, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 27 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 4, 2023):

We also reverse for another reason: the State was not on notice that Bender was seeking to suppress the arrest.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(g)(2) requires a defendant to clearly state in a motion to suppress “the particular evidence sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression, and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based.” Rule 3.190(h)(2) requires the same for motions by a defendant to suppress a confession or admission.

Bender sought to suppress her statements to the officer, but she did not challenge the arrest. Yet, the county court suppressed the arrest. The county court’s suppression of Bender’s arrest exceeded the scope of Bender’s request and did so without notice to the State. Suppressing the arrest without notice to the State requires reversal of the suppression order. See, e.g., State v. Christmas, 133 So. 3d 1093, 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of pleading. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.