THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARCELINO GRIBEIRO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appeals a suppression order excluding cocaine and an incriminating statement obtained after a vehicle stop. The trial court found the initial stop lacked constitutional justification, but also found the defendant voluntarily consented to search after Miranda warnings. The appellate court reversed, holding that voluntary consent after proper warnings dissipates any taint from an unlawful initial seizure.
The evidence should not be suppressed. Under Florida law, any taint arising from an unlawful prior seizure is dissipated as a matter of law when a defendant is advised of his constitutional right to refuse consent to search and nevertheless voluntarily consents.
[1] A voluntary consent to search, given after being advised of the right to refuse, dissipates any taint arising from a prior unlawful seizure.
[2] An incriminating statement made after being advised of Miranda rights and voluntarily consenting to a search is admissible, even if the initial stop was unlawful.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“any taint which may arise from even an unlawful prior seizure of the defendant's person is dissipated as a matter of law when he is advised of his constitutional right to refuse consent to search and nevertheless voluntarily does so”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that voluntary consent after proper warnings cures any constitutional defect in the initial seizure
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice stopped defendant's vehicle. Although the stop may have lacked articulable suspicion, the defendant was properly advised of his Miranda rights …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dissipation Of Taint cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals from an order suppressing a large quantity of cocaine and an incriminating statement secured after a police stop of the defendant’s vehicle which the trial judge held was not founded upon an articulable suspicion of wrongdoing. We need not and do not consider the correctness of this conclusion that the stop was constitutionally invalid, because the lower court also determined, based upon ample record evidence, that
[o]nce the defendant was stopped, there is no question ... that the defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, that he was advised of his rights pursuant to the “Miranda rule”, that he was advised that he need not consent to a search, and, in spite of these events, he voluntarily consented to a search which disclosed the existence of several kilos of cocaine and voluntarily made an inculpatory statement, [e.s.]
Many Florida eases, beginning with Husted v. State, 370 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), have clearly established that any taint which may arise from even an unlawful prior seizure of the defendant’s person is dissipated as a matter of law when he is advised of his constitutional right to refuse consent to search and nevertheless voluntarily does so. State v. Martinez, 459 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Milwood, 430 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Howard, 394 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Henry, 390 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Champion, 383 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); see also United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976). The application of this rule to the quoted findings below requires that the order under review be
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Gonzalez v. State, 578 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…right to refuse consent to a search that Florida courts have held that the taint of a prior illegal seizure of the defendant’s person may be dissipated so as to render a subsequent consent to search free and voluntary. See, e.g., State v. Gribeiro, 513 So. 2d 1323, 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Husted v. State, 370 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). There is no showing on this record that the defendant was ever given such advice prior to signing the consent form in this case; indeed, the record reflects only that Mira…
-
State v. Paul, 638 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…ght to refuse consent to search and nonetheless voluntarily does so. Boyd; Gonzalez v. State, 578 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); State v. Simm, 558 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Windes v. State, 547 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Gribeiro, 513 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Martinez, 459 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Howard, 394 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Champion, 383 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In this case, the trial judge was the fact finder. He heard the po…
-
Hernan Perez v. State, 536 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…taint which may arise from even an unlawful prior seizure of the defendant’s person is dissipated as a matter of law when he is advised of his constitutional right to refuse consent to search and nevertheless voluntarily does so.” State v. Gribeiro, 513 So. 2d 1323, 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The record shows that defendant Perez was given a consent form which advised him that he could refuse consent for the search, and the police officer testified that defendant appeared to read the form. Although the evidenc…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1976)
- Husted v. State, 370 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Milwood, 430 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- State v. Champion, 383 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- State v. Errol Henry, 390 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Martinez, 459 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- State v. Howard, 394 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)