MIGUEL MENDEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review Mendez v. State, 534 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), in which the district court affirmed on authority of State v. Avery, 531 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In Avery, the district court certified the following question to be of great public importance:
May evidence, obtained as a result of defendant’s consent to search, be suppressed by the trial court as “coerced” upon the sole ground that the officer(s) boarded a bus (or other public transport) and randomly sought consent from passengers?
We have discretionary jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed in Bostick v. State, 554 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1989), we answer the certified question, as rephrased therein, in the affirmative, quash the opinion of the district court, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Bostick.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur. GRIMES, J., dissents with an opinion, in which OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
GRIMES, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Bostick v. State, 554 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1989).
OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991)…Court does. It routinely grants review in bus search cases and quashes denials of motions to suppress expressly on the basis of its answer to the certified question in this case. See, e. g., McBride v. State, 554 So. 2d 1160 (1989); Mendez v. State, 554 So. 2d 1161 (1989); Shaw v. State, 555 So. 2d 351 (1989); Avery v. State, 555 So. 2d 351 (1989); Serpa v. State, 555 So. 2d 1210 (1989); Jones v. State, 559 So. 2d 1096 (1990).…
Authorities Cited
- Bostick v. State, 554 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Avery, 531 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Mendez v. State, 534 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)