{"id":1567,"date":"2008-06-22T06:59:07","date_gmt":"2007-12-01T00:16:54","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-11-30T21:46:51","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1567","title":{"rendered":"FL: Search that violated statute but not Fourth Amendment not suppressed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Violation of state strip search statute did not warrant suppression because the search was valid under the Fourth Amendment. Rumore v. State<\/a>, 969 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007):<\/p>\n

Furthermore, we hold that the subsequent strip search of Mr. Rumore’s person was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment but unlawful under 2007->Ch0901->Section%20211#0901.211″>section 901.211, Florida Statutes<\/a> (2005). However, Mr. Rumore is not entitled to have the fruits of the search suppressed because the exclusionary rule is inapplicable in the context of violations of section 901.211. See Laster v. State<\/em>, 933 So. 2d 41, 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Jenkins v. State<\/em>, 924 So. 2d 20, 33-34 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 944 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2006).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

“Plain feel” did not justify opening a candy container to look for contraband. Crawford v. State<\/a>, 980 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).*<\/p>\n

A search warrant was not invalid for not mentioning that defendants lived there. United States v. Xiong, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87085 (E.D. Wis. November 26, 2007):<\/p>\n

An accurate street address is by itself sufficient to allow a reasonable person to “ascertain and identify the place intended.” Id.<\/em> Here, the warrant included in addition to an accurate street address, a physical description of the premises. Defendants have offered no explanation of why this was not sufficient.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Inevitable discovery supported seizure of 10,000 pounds of marijuana from defendant’s house which they could smell after the door was opened. They did a “protective sweep” and sent for a warrant. The inevitable discovery doctrine supported the seizure. Herrera-Fernandez v. State<\/a>, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 18729 (Fla. 4th DCA November 28, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1567","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1567"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1567\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}