STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
FOSKIE MCCORD, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a trial court order denying the state's motion to obtain blood, hair, and saliva samples from a criminal defendant. The court found the trial court had misapplied precedent and remanded for reconsideration of the state's probable cause argument.
The court granted certiorari review, finding the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by misapplying precedent. The court quashed the order denying the state's motion and remanded for the trial court to address the merits of the state's probable cause argument and make any other necessary determinations.
[1] Certiorari review of a trial court order is sua sponte dismissed as untimely when the petition for writ of certiorari is filed beyond the statutory time limit.
[2] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law when it relies on a prior appellate decision that has been disapproved by the Supreme Court.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the Supreme Court decision in State v. Johnson, 814 So.2d 390 (Fla.2002) disapproved of Rutherford to the extent that it applied the exclusionary rule any time the state failed to comply with the statute, without regard to whether the state made a good faith effort to comply with the statute.”
Establishes that the exclusionary rule should not apply automatically without considering whether the state acted in good faith.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state sought to obtain blood, hair, and saliva samples from McCord in a pending criminal prosecution. The trial court denied the state's motion to…
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 Sanctions For Discovery Violations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Foskie McCord has filed a motion for rehearing of this court’s opinion on motion to stay mandate pending review in State v. McCord, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA May 22, 2002). We grant rehearing in part and deny it in part, withdraw that opinion and substitute this one in lieu thereof:
The state challenges by petition for writ of certiorari the trial court’s order denying the state’s motion to take blood, hair and saliva samples from McCord in a pending criminal prosecution. It also challenges an earlier trial court order which granted a defense motion to suppress in the same case, but it is time-barred from challenging it here. Certiorari review of the earlier order is, therefore, sua sponte dismissed as untimely.
As for the latter order, we grant certiorari review. We find that the State has demonstrated irreparable harm See State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988). We also find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law insofar as it relied on this court’s State v. Rutherford, 707 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 718 So. 2d 171 (Fla.1998). First of all, the Supreme Court decision in State v. Johnson, 814 So. 2d 390 (Fla.2002) disapproved of Rutherford to the extent that it applied the exclusionary rule any time the state failed to comply with the statute, without regard to whether the state made a good faith effort to comply with the statute. Secondly, the trial court erroneously relied on Rutherford because it concerned section 395.3025(4), Fla. Stat. (1999) and its provisions for patient and personnel records. This case concerned a saliva sample obtained by a detective under false pretenses. It did not fall under the provisions of that statute. Furthermore, to the extent that the trial court inferred from those cases involving the statute a broader authority for future exclusion of the discovery sought as a' sanction against the government, the decision in Johnson would appear to foreclose that inference.
The trial court expressly stated in the order denying the State’s motion to take samples that it would not address the merits of the State’s probable cause argument due to its reliance on Rutherford. Insofar as this reliance has now been shown to have been misplaced, we remand this cause to the trial court for this and any other necessary determination.
The order under review is quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
POLEN, C.J., FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Zina Johnson, 814 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2002)
- State v. Rutherford, 707 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)