DIEUFRAND MONDESTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court affirmed the lower court's decision, relying on precedent that officers do not always need to inform citizens of their right to refuse a warrantless consent search.
The specific facts of the case are not detailed, but the appeal concerns a warrantless consent search.…
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 Fourth Amendment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
. We affirm on the authority of Hemingway v. State, 762 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) and United States v. Guapi, 144 F. 3d 1393, 1395 (11th Cir.1998). The Guapi court observed that the United States Supreme Court “has specifically rejected the notion that police officers must always inform citizens of their right to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrant-less consent search.” Id. (citation omitted).
We note that the Fourth Amendment analysis emanating from Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991), has come under much criticism from commentators. See Tracey Maelin, Justice Thurgood Marshall: Taking the Fourth Amendment Seriously, 77 Cornell L.Rev. 723, 801-02 (1992) (footnotes omitted). See also Defining a Seizure-Police Chases and Bus Sweeps: Florida v. Bostick and California v. Hodari D., 105 Harv. L.Rev. 297, 308 (1991); James F. Heuerman, Florida v. Bostick: Abandonment of Reason in Fourth Amendment Reasonable Person Analysis, 13 N. Ill. L.Rev. 173, 191-92, 198-99 (1992); Michael J. Reed, Jr., Comment, Florida v. Bostick: The Fourth Amendment Takes a Back Seat to the Drug War, 27 N. Eng. L.Rev. 825, 846-856 (1993); Robert V. Ward, Consenting to a Search and Seizure in Poor and Minority Neighborhoods: No Place for a ‘Reasonable Person”, 36 How. L.J. 239, 240-41, 251-54 (1993).
We recognize that this is not the appropriate court to reexamine Bostick. See Art. I, § 12, Fla. Const. AFFIRMED.
FARMER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991)
- United States v. Guapi, 144 F.3d 1393 (11th Cir. 1998)
- Hemingway v. State, 762 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)