CARLOS A. NUNEZ XENES
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A defendant can be compelled to orally disclose a smartphone passcode.
[1] A defendant may be compelled to orally disclose a smartphone passcode under the Fifth Amendment, as the act of disclosure is not testimonial in nature.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlos A. Nunez Xenes appealed a county court decision regarding compelled disclosure of a smartphone passcode.…
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 Testimonial Vs. Non-Testimonial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
CARLOS A. NUNEZ XENES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-977 September 16, 2022 Appeal from the County Court for Hendry County; Darrell R. Hill, Judge. Wayne R. Atkins and Matthew J. Troccoli of Xander Law Group, P.A., Miami, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chelsea N. Simms, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; and Allison C. Heim, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See State v. Stahl, 206 So. 3d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). But see Garcia v. State, 302 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA