Defendants were arrested for robbery, and they objected to the R&R as failing to consider that the inventory of the vehicle was a pretext for an investigative search. The court finds that the policy on inventory was followed and that pretext wasn\u2019t shown. The USMJ also found that the search was justified by probable cause, and the court rejects that a search warrant was required under the circumstances. United States v. Morris, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17908 (D.Neb. Feb. 7, 2017).<\/p>\n
The Florida Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Birchfield: \u201cBirchfield has made our task significantly easier. Under the Florida Constitution, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is governed by decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Art. I, \u00a7 12, Fla. Const. Thus, we adopt the holding in Birchfield that breath-alcohol tests are permissible under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. We once again answer the certified question in the affirmative as applied to Williams and affirm his conviction. See Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2184-85.\u201d Williams v. State<\/a>, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2164 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 17, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendants were arrested for robbery, and they objected to the R&R as failing to consider that the inventory of the vehicle was a pretext for an investigative search. The court finds that the policy on inventory was followed and that … Continue reading