Donald Eldrenal Jenkins v. State of Florida

SC06-839

,,,,,,,,,,,, ALL RISE HEAR YEA HERE YEA
HERE YEA THE SUPREME COURT OF
FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION.
ALL THOSE HAVING BUSINESS
BEFORE THIS COURT YOU SHALL BE
HEARD.
GOD SAFER THESE UNITED STATES
THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND
THIS HONORABLE COURT.,,
.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA,
PLEASE BE SEATED.
>> GOOD MORNING, FRIENDS AND
WELCOME TO THE FLOIDA SUPREME
COURT!!$$!!!!!!!!
COURT.
AND THE ARGUMENT CALENDAR FOR
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25TH.
WE HAVE SOME HONORED GUESTS
WITH US TODAY, WE HAVE WITH
US, A GROUP, FROM SEA WIND
ELEMENTARY HOPE SOUND FLORIDA
THE PRINCIPAL MR. LARRY GREEN
WOULD YOU STAND SO THAT YOU
CAN BE RECOGNIZED, PLEASE.
WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE,
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU
YOUNGSTERS PRESENTED YOUR
ARGUMENTS IN CASES YESTERDAY
AFTERNOON HERE IN THE COURT.
SO WE ARE GLAD YOU ARE HERE.
AND, ALSO, TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY, TO WELCOME THE
2007 JUSTICE TEACHING
INSTITUTE THE EDUCATORS FROM
HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE JUSTICE
TEACHING INSTITUTE WE ARE GLAD
YOU ARE HERE AND WELCOME TO
THE ORAL ARGUMENTS AND WITH
THOSE INTRODUCTORY MATTERS WE
WILL PROCEED OH, TO OUR FIRST
CASE WHICH IS DONALD JENKINS
VERSUS THE STATE OFFED FOR,
MISS WILSON, READY TO PROCEED?
.
>> YOU THIS, YOUR HONOR.
-- THANK YOU YOUR HONOR PLAY
IT PLEASE THE COURT MY NAME IS
CAROL WILSON I REPRESENT
DONALD JENKINS IN THIS APPEAL
FOR CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
FOR POSITION OF COCAINE WITH
INTENT TO SELL.
>> LET ME ASK YOU BEFORE YOU
GET TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE
THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE
RECEIVED 17 MONTHS IN PRISON
IS THAT RIGHT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND, THE THAT OCCURRED,
MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO, I
THINK!!$$!!!!!!!!
THINK, SO HE HAS BEEN,
RELEASED?
ALREADY BEEN RELEASED.
>> YES, YES.
>> ACADEMIC QUESTION FOR US.
>> NO, IT IS NOT, BECAUSE.
>> AS FAR AS YOUR CLIENT IS
CONCERNED.
>> WOULD HAVE DONE ACADEMIC AT
THE TIME OF THE SECOND
DISTRICT OPINION HE WAS
RELEASED WELL BEFORE.
THAT HE STILL HAS THE
CONVICTION ON HIS RECORD.
AND THIS HE HAD THE RIGHT TO
CHALLENGE THAT TO THE DIRECT
APPEAL PROCESS.
AND IT IS -- STILL PERTAINS TO
HIM AT THIS POINT BECAUSE IT
CAN BE COUNTED IN POINTS
AGAINST HIM SHOULD HE HAVE ANY
FUTURE PROBLEMS WITH THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
I THE ADDRESSES YOUR QUESTION
THANK YOU.
>> COULD YOU GIVE US AEL
THUMBNAIL SKETCH OF THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT GAVE
RISE TO THIS CASE.
>> YES, CERTAINLY, WHAT
HAPPENED IS ON THE 15th OF
JANUARY, 2003, 18-YEAR-OLD
MR. JENKINS PULLED INTO A GAS
STATION PARKING LOT, HE HAD
BEEN TELEPHONED BY A
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, AND,
SHOWED UP AT THE PARKING LOT,
PRESUMABLY TO ENGAGE IN THE
SALE OF COCAINE.
>> JUST STOP ON THAT THE
QUESTION IS IN THE OPINION AND
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT --
THE RECORD IT SAYS THAT THERE
WAS THAT HE ORDERED A QUANTITY
OF COCAINE.
IS THAT -- IS THERE ANYWHERE
IN THERE AS TO WHAT -- HOW
MUCH COCAINE, WAS HOW WAS
GOING TO BE SOLD?
>> I SAID TO MYSELF WOULDN'T
IT BE NICE IF WE HAD A RECORD.
AND THIS CERTAINLY ONE OF
THOSE CASES, BECAUSE THERE IS
NOTHING THAT SAYS -- AT VERY
-- LITTLE DETAILS OF THIS
SUPPOSED TRANSACT SHUN ARE
KNOWN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
AMOUNT WAS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS.
>> BUT WHEN THE POLICE OFFICER
WHO OVER HEARD THE
CONVERSATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CONVERSATION, WHEN THE
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT CALLED
THE DEFENDANT -- TESTED IT WAS
DEFENDANT SAID I WOULD LIKE TO
BUY SOME COCAINE, WHAT YOU DO
KNOW WHAT THE EXACT WORDS WERE
THAT WERE USED?
AND JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
IN TERMS OF THE BECAUSE THE
TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THAT IT WAS
A WHEN HE WAS GIVING THE
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SEARCH,
THAT THERE WAS A -- GIVEN THE
SMALL QUANTITY INVOLVED.
AND I DIDN'T KNOW HOW --
SOMEBODY CAME UP WITH THAT
THERE WAS SMALL QUANTITY OR
LARGE QUANITY WHETHER THIS IS
TRAFFICKING COCAINE OR --
>> THERE WAS NOTHING FOR THE
TRIAL COURT TO THERE WERE NO
FACTS PRESENTED TO HIM, EXCEPT
WHAT HE LEARNED AFTER THE
WHOLE THING WAS OVER.
>> OKAY IF YOU WILL GO AHEAD
AND FINISH, JUSTICE ANSTEAD$$'S
QUESTION.
>> CERTAINLY.
HE PULLED INTO A COMMERCIAL
TEXACO GAS STATION,S WHERE
THERE WERE ALSO OTHER
BUSINESSES THAT WERE OPEN AT
THAT TIME.
AND WHEN HE PULLED IN
IMMEDIATE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IMMEDIATELY, THE POLICE PULLED
IN, AND TOOK HIM OUT OF THE
CAR, AND HAND CONSERVATIVED
HIM AND RE-- HAND CUFFED HIM
REMOVED HIM AT GUNPOINT.
>> ONE QUESTION AS YOU FOLLOW
THROUGH, WHAT LEVEL OF CAUSE
DID LAW ENFORCEMENT HAVE AT
THAT POINT IN YOUR VIEW?
>> IN MY VIEW THEY DID NOT
HAVE THEY HAD REASONABLE
SUSPICION BUT DID NOT HAVE
PROBABLE CAUSE TO REMOVE HIM
AT THAT POINT.
>> GIVE US, THOUGH, AS YOU ARE
DESCRIBING THE FACTS, OF THE
ARRIVAL OF THE DEFENDANT, AT
THE GAS STATION, WHAT HAD
OCCURRED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OCCURRED, BETWEEN THE CI, AND
THE POLICE PRIOR TO YOUR
CLIENT ARRIVING AT THE GAS
STATION?
>> ACCORDING TO OFFICER
DANIEL, HER DEPARTMENT TAMPA
POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN
CONTACTED BY A CONSERVATIVE
INFORM -- CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANT OR CI VOLUNTEERED TO
WORK FOR HER HAD DONE PRIOR
WORK FOR THE DEPARTMENT IN THE
PAST WLA SHE TERMED PAGEOUTS
IN A PAGEOUT THE PERSON, CALLS
SOMEONE, AND EVIDENTLY HAS --
COMMENT TO SOME KIND OF
TRANSACTION THE NATURE OF THE
PRIORS TRANSACTION AND THIS
TRANSACTION WERE NOT KNOWN
WHAT WAS NONE THE SEV HEARD
ONE SIDE OF A PHONE
CONVERSATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CONVERSATION, AND, THEN,
CONTACTED SOMEONE AND THEN THE
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT SAID
THE PERSON WILL BE HERE, AT
THIS PARTICULAR GAS STATION,
IN 15 MINUTES.
>> WASN'T THERE SOME MORE WHAT
OTHER DETAILS, DID --
>> THE ONLY DETAIL THAT THEY
HAD WAS A CAR A VAGUE CAR
DESCRIPTION BROWN BOXY CAR AND
A YOUNG BLACK MALE AND SOMEONE
KNOWN AS D.
THAT WAS BASICALLY IT.
>> BUT YOU DO AGREE AND YOUR
CLIENT AGREES THAT A CALL WAS
IN FACT MADE ON THE $$OFFICER'S
CELL TONE TO HIM?
-- CELL PHONE TO HIM.
>> THERE WAS WHAT THE FACTS
PROVE WAS THAT WHEN THE CELL
PHONE WAS REMOVED FROM MY
CLIENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
CLIENT'S CAR, THE OFFICER A
NUMBER WAS ON THAT CELL PHONE
THAT IS WLA SHE TESTIFIED DO.
>> BEFORE OR AFTER THE SEARCH?
>> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN, AFTER
HE HAD BEEN REMOVED AT
GUNPOINT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GUNPOINT.
>> BUT NO SEARCH YET?
>> OR DOES THAT MAKE A
DIFFERENCE?
I DON'T THINK THE RECORD MY
RECOLLECTION OF THE RECORD IS
THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR.
>> ANSWER JUSTICE WELLS'
QUESTION, PLEASE.
>> THE WASN'T THE TESTIMONY
THAT THE CALL WAS MADE BY THE
INFORMANT IN THE PRESENCE OF
THE PLIS OFFICER?
-- POLICE OFFICER?
>> YES, OKAY SO THE POLICE
OFFICER HAD A SITUATION IN
WHICH THERE WAS A CALL MADE,
AND ARRANGEMENT MADE TO MEET
IN 15 MINUTES.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> 15 MINUTES -- AND THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE CAR THEY
SHOWED UP WHERE IT WAS
DESIGNATED THAT THE MEETING
WAS TO TAKE PLACE, THE CAR
SHOWED UP, AND THERE WAS THIS
DEFENDANT.
THAT IS THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED;
RIGHT?
.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
ONE WALKED ACROSS SAID THAT IS
HIM THAT IS HIM THAT IS HIM;
RIGHT?
.
>> WELL, HE LOOKED AT THE CAR,
AND SAID TO THE POLICE THAT IS
HIM THAT'S HIM AND THEN
OFFICER DANIEL SAID, SHE
WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
AND SO SHE WANTED TO SECURE
HIM, WHILE THE CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANT WENT BACK TO THE
CORPORAL!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CORPORAL, AND SAID, AND
CONFIRMED THE IDENTIFICATION.
>> YES, THERE IS ONE OTHER
FACT I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS ITS
SIGNIFICANCE I GUESS WE ARE
STILL HERE WHETHER THIS WAS
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST WHAT
-- IT WAS ARREST ON WHAT CRIME
THE SIGNIFICANCE THAT THE
POLICE SEV -- OFFICER KNEW
THIS WAS AN AREA THAT WAS
KNOWN FOR DRUGS.
IS NOT THAT ONE MORE FACT THAT
WE'VE GOT TO EVALUATE IN TERMS
OF THE TOTALITY OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> THAT IS ONE MORE FACT THAT
WOULD BE EVALUATED UNDER A
PROBABLE CAUSE SITUATION.
>> SO WHAT IS MISSING?
WE HAVE A CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANT WHO TALKED TO THE
OFFICER, DESCRIBED MAYBE IN
VAGUE TERMS IN YOUR -- WHO THE
PERSON IS GOING TO BE, HAS
DESCRIBED THE CAR, TOLD HER
BASICALLY HE IS GOING TO BE HE
IS GOING TO SELL SOME DRUGS.
WHAT IS MISSING HERE FOR
PROBABLE CAUSE?
>> WHAT IS MISSING HERE IS THE
ACTUAL TRANSACTION ITSELF.
>> YOU DO REALLY HAVE TO HAVE
THAT?
I MAINTAIN PROBABLE CAUSE,
REALLY IS A PROBABILITY OR A
SUBSTANTIAL CHANCE THAT
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS GOING TO
TAKE PLACE.
AND DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE
ACTUAL SHOWING OF THE CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY IN ORDER TO HAVE
PROBABLE CAUSE.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO IT -- YOU
DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT IN EVERY
CASE JUSTICE BUT I BELIEVE IT
IS REQUIRED IN THIS ONE
BECAUSE OF THE OTHER UNKNOWNS
THAT PRECEDED THE SEIZURE OF
MR. JENKINS.
>> DOES AT THE OTHER
PREDICTABLE CONDUCT, TAKE US
INTO A DIFFERENT LEVEL, THIS
IS NOT JUST A CALL OFF THE
STREET OR JUST A THAT THIS
PERSON DEALS DRUGS BUT GAVE
PREDICTABLE CONDUCT, THE
EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO
HAPPEN HAPPENED.
DOESN'T THAT CHANGE IT?
>> WELL, HE MADE A PHONE CALL,
AND SOMEONE SHOWED UP.
AND I THINK AT THAT POINT THE
POLICE NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE.
AND OUR VIEW THAT IS NOT
PROBABLE CAUSE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
FORWARD TO MY OTHER ARGUMENTS,
IF I MAY, AS TO WHAT HAPPENED
AFTER HE WAS REMOVED.
BECAUSE I THINK, I WOULD LIKE
TO USE MORE OF MY TIME
CERTAINING THE STRIP SEARCH
STATUE IF THAT IS ACCEPTBLE
>> LET ME ASK YOU RELATING TO
THAT WHAT DID THE COURT
DETERMINE, IF THE COURT DID
DETERMINE, AT WHAT POINT YOUR
CLIENT WAS ARRESTED, WAS IT AT
THE POINT WHERE THEY TOOK HIM
OUT OF THE CAR AND HANDCUFFED
HIM OR WAS IT ADVOCATE THEY
FOUND THE DRUGS.
>> WELL, THE -- AFTER.
>> THE TRIAL COURT DIDN'T MAKE
A DETERMINATION, AS TO THAT
PARTICULAR FACT.
>> WHAT DID THE POLICE TESTIFY
TO THE THE POLICE WERE
CONFLICTED ON THAT.
AND, THE POLICE, THE FIRST --
THE LEAD SEV DANIEL SAID SHE
HAD A REASONABLE SUSPICION
WHEN THEY TOOK HIM OUT OF THE
CAR, AND THEN THE NEXT
OFFICER, WHO CAME -- I BELIEVE
SAID HE THOUGHT THEY HAD
PROBABLE CAUSE, TO ABOUT AN
ATTEMPTED SALE.
>> WHICH IS INTERESTING JUST
ON THAT, BECAUSE IF THERE IS
AS YOU HAD SAID IF REASONABLE
SUSPICION I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE $$STATE'S POSITION IS GOING
TO BE BUT THE CASE WAS PRETTY
CLEAR, THAT THEY COULDN'T DO
WHAT THEY DID -- FOURTH
AMENDMENT, DIDN'T REALLY -- SO
LET'S GO GOT TO ASSUME I THINK
AT THIS POINT THERE WAS
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, TO
GET TO THE NEXT POINT.
>> THE NEXT POINT WE HAVE TO
ASSUME THAT THOSE THINGS HAD
BEEN RESOLVED UNFAVORABLY TO
MY CLIENT.
CORRECT.
METAPHOR TO GO THE NEXT POINT
WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE
SEIZURE ITSELF THAT OCCURRED.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS MY
BRIEF TIME ON THE STRIP SEARCH
STATUTE BECAUSE I BELIEVE I
ARGUED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT A
PORTION SUFFICIENTLY M MY
BRIEF.
>> -- AS YOU BEGIN THAT,
ANALYSIS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANALYSIS, WOULD YOU TELL US,
HOW ARTICLE ONE SECTION 12,
PLAYS INTO THIS, BECAUSE UNDER
THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION,
WE ARE SUPPOSED TO INTERPRET
FOURTH A.M. ISSUES IN CONFORM!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
CONFORMITY WITH THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT.
AND SO, IF -- IS A VIOLATION
OF THAT STATUTE A
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, IF
NOT, ONE THAT HAVE BEEN A
VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW?
>> IT IS NOT A VIOLATION UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION JUST BECAUSE
IT IS A STATUTORY VIOLATION
THE CONSTITUTION ACTS AS A
LARGER STATUTE THAT CONTROLS
THE -- THE OTHER STATUTES THAT
ARE ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE
AFTERWARDS THAT ARE MORE
SPECIFIC, BUT THE STRIP
SEARCH -- SO AS FAR AS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN HER
STATE, WE HAVE THE MUTE$$!!!!UAL!!$$!!!!!!
MUTUALITY -- PROVISION I GUESS
IT IS CALLED THAT SAYS THAT WE
HAVE TO HOLD THE SAME AS THE
FEDERAL COURTS DO.
SO IT IS A FEDERAL IF FEDERAL
CAUSES SAYS THIS FOURTH
AMENDMENT VIOLATION THEN WE
HAVE TO AS WELL AND IF THEY
SAY IT IS NOT THEN WE CAN'T.
>> GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS WHAT
YOU REALLY WANT TO TALK TO US
ABOUT.
>> WELL, CONCERNING THE STRIP
SEARCH STATUTE, WHAT HAPPENED
DISASTER COURT THE DISASTER
COURT FOUND THAT -- DISTRICT
COURT FOUND WHAT HAPPENED HERE
WHEN MR. JENKINS WAS PULLED
OUT OF THE CAR THE POLICE TOOK
HIM IN THIS PUBLIC PLACE, THEY
SEARCHED HIM, IN THE PATDOWN
WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND ANYTHING
WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND
ANYTHING, REGARDINGING
CONTRABAND, ANY DRUGS ON HIS
PERSON OR IN THE CAR.
>> THEY DID FIND 641 DOLLARS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$641 IN CASH.
CORRECT.
>> THEY DID FIND CASH ON HIM.
THAT IS TRUE.
BUT THEY DID NOT FIND ANYTHING
THAT TIED HIM DIRECTLY TO
SELLING DRUGS.
AND THERE WERE NO DETAILS
KNOWN THAT THERE WAS GOING TO
BE A DRUG SALE AT THIS
LOCATION, ONLY THAT THIS
PERSON WAS GOING TO APPEAR.
AND SOMETIMES, THESE MATTERS
HAPPEN IN OTHER LOCATIONS, A
LOT OF THINGS THAT REALLY
WEREN'T KNOWN ABOUT HOW THIS
WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE PLACE.
BUT AT ANY RATE --
>> ARE YOU SAYING THERE WAS NO
DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE CI, AND
THE OFFICER, THAT THIS IS WHAT
THAT A DRUG TRANSACTION WAS
GOING TO TAKE PLACE?
>> WELL, THERE WAS IN A RECORD
THERE IS GENERAL LANGUAGE, BUT
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT REALLY
THE PARTICULARS WERE NEVER
SPELLED OUT IN THE RECORD.
THAT IS MY ONLY POINT.
>> OKAY.
>> CAN YOU DESCRIBE PARTICULAR!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PARTICULARLY HOW THE DRUGS
WERE FOUND BECAUSE YOU
DESCRIBE IT AS A STRIP SEARCH,
THE WAY IED READ IT, IT WASN'T
NECESSARILY A STRIP SEARCH AND
WHEN YOU DESCRIBE IT, IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT THE TRIAL COURT
BELIEVED THE POLICE SEV'S
VERSION SO COULD YOU DESCRIBE
MA WHAT THE POLICE OFFICERS
TESTIFIED TO AS TO HOW THE
DRUGS WERE FOUND?
>> THE DRUGS WERE FOUND WHEN
THE OFFICER WHO HAD PATTED HIM
DOWN COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING,
AND HE WAS GIVEN PERMISSION BY
HIS SERGEANT TO THEN LOOK INTO
TO ACTUALLY HE WAS TOLD, ON
THE RECORD TO DO WHAT HE
NEEDED TO DO.
AND WHAT HE DID IS HE PULLED
BACK THE BOXER SHORTS THE
UNDERWEAR MR. JENKINS WAS
WEARING WHEN HE LOOKED INTO
HIS PRIVATE PARTS IN THIS
BUTTOCKS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUTTOCKS, THERE HE SAW TWO
INCH PLASTIC BAG THAT WAS
STICKING UP.
IN HIS BUTTOCKS AND AT THAT
POINT, HE ROOECHD INTO THIS
UNDERWEAR!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
UNDERWEAR, AND TO THE CRACK OF
HIS BUTTOCKS AND PULLED OUT
THE PLASTIC BAG.
>> SO WAY YOU DESCRIBE IT THEY
DIDN'T PULL DOWN HIS PANTS OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
>> WELL, UNDER THE STATUTE --
>> I UNDERSTAND, THAT YOU HAVE
A STATUTORY ARGUMENT I JUST
WANT TO KNOW FACTUALLY WHAT
HAPPENED THEY DID NOT PULL
DOWN HIS PANTS.
>> THE RECORD ACCORDING TO THE
POLICE HE DIDN'T SAY HE PULLED
DOWN HIS PANTS HE SAID HE
PULLED HIS PANTS BACK AND
LOOKED INTO HIS BUTTOCKS.
AT THAT POINT.
>> HOW DOES THAT FIT WITH THE
STATUTORY VIOLATION IN YOUR
VIEW.
>> BECAUSE THE STATUTE SAYS IF
YOU REARRANGE CLOTHING AND
LOOK IN AND LIFT THE SPECIFIC
PRIVATE PARTS THAT ARE PROTECT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
PROTECTED.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
PRIVATE PARTS.
>> I HAVE A -- SINCE I WAS THE
AUTHOR OF THE ACT -- OF COURSE
11 YEARS HAVE GONE BY
LEGISLATURE DIDN'T CHANGE
ANYTHING -- MY QUESTION TO
YOU, IS -- IS THE EXCLUSIONARY
RULE IF THERE IS A STATUTORY
VIOLATION DOES IT IS THERE ON
DEPEND ON THE FLAG RANSY OF
THE VIOLATION, AND, OR, SAY
THIS WAS AN ISSUE JUST AS IT
WASN'T WRITTEN OR -- BUT
EVERYTHING ELSE WERE A -- WAS
DONE APPROPRIATELY, AND IF
THAT IS OR IS IT JUST ANY
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE WOULD
GIVE RISE TO THE APPLICATION
OF A EXCLUSION --
>> WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT IS
THIS CASE I DON'T THAT IS NOT
MY POSITION TODAY, BECAUSE IT
IS NOT REQUIRED FOR MY CLIENT.
IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS IT WAS
PUBLIC SEARCH AND I THINK THAT
IS THE GIST OF THE MAIN
OFFENSE HERE.
>> BUT THAT IS WHERE YOU GET
BACK TO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL
ARGUMENT AS TO WHEN UNDER THE
OTHER CASES THAT IF WE GO
BACK, TO THE STATUTORY INTENT
THERE IS GOOD FAITH, WHERE
DOES THAT ALL FIT IN IN THE
STATUTORY --
>> WELL THE DS CASE A LOT OF
THESE OTHER STRIP SEARCH
SITUATIONS OCCUR IN AN
INSTITUTION, WHEREAS WE HAVE
THIS OCCURRING IN A PARKING
LOT, WHERE THERE IS BUSINESS
GOING ON.
AND I THINK, CERTAINLY, YOU
HAVE LEGISLATION THAT IS
DESIGNED NOT ONLY TO PROTECT
THE ACCUSED, AND TO TELL THE
POLICE HOW TO PROCEED IN THIS
VERY PRIVATE WAY, BUT WE HAVE
WILLING -- LEGISLATION THAT IS
DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC
DOES NOT WANT 20 GO GET GAS,
AND SEE THE POLICE LOOKING
INTO $$PEOPLE'S UNDERWEAR, AND
DOING THESE REALLY OFFENSIVE
ACTIVITIES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ACTIVITIES, UNLESS THERE IS AN
EXINTELLIGENCEY, UNLESS THAT
MEANS THERE IS, HE AN MESSAGE
SAFETY OF THE PERSON WHO IS
BEING SEARCHED.
>> AGAIN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT
OFFENSIVE ACTIVITIES I COULD
SEE IF THIS PERSON'S PANTS
WERE PULLED DOWN, IN PLAIN
VIEW OF EVERYBODY AROUND, BUT
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED
HERE, SO GET BACK TO JUSTICE
PARIENTE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PARIENTE'S QUESTION ARE YOU
ARGUING EVEN DE MINIMIS
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE
REQUIRES EXCLUE SHOURN DOES IT
HAVE TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL
VIOLATION RECOGNIZING THAT
SOME SUBSTANTIAL VIOLATIONS
ARE THEN GOING TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL WOULD
REQUIRE, THE EXCLUSION ANYWAY,
SO, IS IT A DE MINIMIS
VIOLATION, PROVIDES EXCLUSION
OR WINDOW BETWEEN DE MINIMIS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION
THAT REQUIRES EXCLUSION?
>> I BELIEVE THAT I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT IS DE MINIMIS
CASE, AND I DON'T I THINK IT
IS OFFENSE$$!!!!IVE WHAT HAPPENED I
SUPPOSE THAT IS VERY -- WHERE
WE CAN JUST DISAGREE I DON'T
THINK ANYBODY LOOKING INTO $$
SOMEBODY'S UNDERWEAR IN PUBLIC
IS ACCEPTABLE AND I THINK THE
LEGISLATURE HAS SPELLED THAT
OUT IN THE STATUTE.
>> THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN SAYING IT IS
ACCEPTABLE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ACCEPTABLE, AND SAYING THAT
THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS SEES
THERE HAD BIMUST BE EXCLUDED
THAT IS EVERYBODY RECOGNIZES
THAT THAT IS A DRASTIC
MEASURE, THAT IS REQUIRED,
WHEN THE STATE, VIOLATES,
SOMEONE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
SOMEONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS TO BE FREE FROM
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SEIZURES, HERE, THERE -- IF WE
FIND THAT THERE IS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION ALL
YOU HAVE IS A VIOLATION OF A
STATUTE.
>> WELL, THE COURTS HAVE
FOUND, AND THE COURTS THE LAWS
OF THIS COURT HAVE FOUNDPED
WHAT STATUTES ESPECIALLY THOSE
THAT ARE EXPOUNDING UPON,
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THAT
THEY WILL EXCLUDE EVIDENCE,
BECAUSE YOU HAVE -- THEN,
OTHERWISE OF YOU THE STATE,
COMING IN, AND MAKING A LAW,
THEN OF YOU THE STATE
VIOLATING THE LAW, THEN YOU
HAVE THE STATE TRYING TO USE
OUR COURT SEARCH -- SYSTEM AND
PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT VIOLATES
THE LAWS THEY DIDN'T SEE FIT
TO FOLLOW.
>> THOSE ARE THE SAME REMEDY
APPLY UNDER A STATUTORY
ANALYSIS AS WOULD APPLY TO
JUSTIFY THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE?
UNDER A CONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATION?
DO WE NOT HAVE A DIFFERENT
STASHED THAT THE STATUTE MUST
LOOK TO SEA TO THAT TO SEE
WHAT THE REMEDY IS OR IS IT
ALSO A BLANKET EXCLUSION IF IT
IS JUSTIFIES THE OR SATISFIES
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.
>> WELL IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATION THE EVIDENCE IS
EXCLUDED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EXCLUDED.
--
>> BY -- FOR THE REASONS YOU
STATED BUT IF THERE HAPPENS TO
BE JUST A STATUTORY VIOLATION,
IS THE REASONING THE SAME AND
IF SO WHY WOULD OO WHY SO?
>> THE REASONING IS NOT THE
SAME, BUT THE REASONING,
REGARDING HOW WE HAVE ARE YOU
GO TO GO DO WITH THE STATUTE
IF WE DON'T EXCLUDE THE
EVIDENCE?
WE HAVE, HERE, A PARTY THE
STATE, THAT IS COMING TO THE
COURT, ESSENTIAL WITH UNCLEAN
HANDS BECAUSE THEY'VE GOTTEN
EVIDENCE THAT VIOLATES THE
STATUTE.
>> BUT --
>> THE LEGISLATURE DIDN'T
PROVIDE THAT AS A REMEDY THE
LEGISLATURE DIDN'T PROVIDE IN
THIS.
>> THEY DIDN'T EXCLUDE IT THEY
DIDN'T EXCLUDE IT EITHER
JUSTICE SO HERE WE ARE, YOU
ARE --
>> BUT THAT BRINGS US BACK TO
WHETHER THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE
ESPECIALLY NOW UNDER HUDSON IN
OUR OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ON
FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS
THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS
TO BE USED ONLY IN NARROW AND
EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.
ISN'T THAT RIGHT IS NOT THAT
WHAT HUDSON SAYS.
>> HUDSON IS A FOURTH
AMENDMENT CASE, JUSTICE, AND
IF YOU LOOKING TO INTERPAT THE
TIME A STATUTE, THIS COURT HAS
NOT INTERPRETED STATUTES TO
EITHER EXCLUDE THE USE OF THE
EXCLUSIONARY ROOM OR NOT TO
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE STATUTE
DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT
WHICH WHAT IS OCCURRED IN THIS
CASE.
>> I WANT YOU TO SAVE SOME OF
YOUR TIME YOU ARE ALMOST OUT
WITH OUR QUESTIONERS.
>> I WILL RESERVE FINE -- FIVE
MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL THANK
YOU.!!$$!!!!!!
>>.
>> PLAY I MAY IT PLEASE THE
COURT KATHRYN KLEIN, ATTORNEY $$
TORN'S OFFICE CRIMINAL APPEAL
-- YEAH --
>> -- IS THIS A SEARCH
INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST OR
WAS THIS A SEARCH DUE TO
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES?
>> THE $$STATE'S POSITION IS
THAT THIS WAS A SEARCH,
INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL APREST.
>> WHAT WAS HE ARRESTED FOR.
>> HE WAS ARRESTED FOR
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO
DELIVERER.
>> WAIT A MINUTE -- IT WILL
SEEMS YOU ARE PUTTING THE CART
BEFORE THE HORSE IF YOU ARE
SAYING THIS IS A SEARCH
INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST AND
HE WAS ARRESTED BEFORE THE
DRUGS WERE FOUND, SO IT
COULDN'T HAVE BEEN ARRESTED
FOR POSSESSION OF DRUGS.
HE HAD TO BE ARRESTED FOR
SOMETHING ELSE, BECAUSE THEY
FOUND IT ADVOCATE HE WAS
ARRESTED ACCORDING TO YOUR
POSITION.
>> UNDER CASES FROM THIS
COURT, INCLUDING BUTLER,
FLOIDA SUPREME COURT DECISION
1995 -- -- RELIABLE INFORRANT
MAY CONSTITUTE CAUSE FOR
ARREST OR SUFFICIENTLY
ACCURATE TO LEAD OFFICER TO
ARREST -- A SUSPECT.
>> ARREST FOR WHAT YOU CAPITAL
ARREST FOR POSSESSINGING
SOMETHING UNTIL YOU FOUND WHAT
HE POSSESSED MAYBE ARRESTED
FOR CONSPIRACY TO DISTRIBUTE
COCAINE, FOR ATTEMPT TO
DISTRIBUTE BUT SEEMS HE CANNOT
HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR
POSSESSION OF COCAINE, BEFORE
THE COCAINE WAS FOUND.
>> WELL, IN BUTLER THERE WAS A
SIMILAR SITUATION, IN WHICH A
NONCI DESCRIBED -- A PERSON
WHO WOULD BE A SPECIFIC
LOCATION, ON A STREET CORNER,
AND A SPECIFIC MANNER, WHICH
HE PACKAGED HIS COCAINE.
AND ON THIS DESCRIPTION,
PACKAGING THE ADDRESS -- THE
OFFICER, WAS APPROACHING THINK
DEFENDANT, AND THEN, HE
STOPPED AND WENT THE OTHER
WAY, AND THEN THE OFFICER,
PROCEEDED TO STOP AND SEARCH
HIM.
AND THE SUPPORT FOUND THERE
WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST
IN THAT CASE.
>> I GUESS THIS IS THE STATE
-- IT SEEMS TO ME, AND THIS IS
WHERE I BECAME CONCERNED, AND
I -- BUTLER IS OUT THERE I
THINK THAT IS THE TEST CASE --
OFFICER DANIELS TESTIFIED THE
APPELLANT WAS SUSPECT IN A
NARCOTICS INVESTIGATION AND
MAY HAVE REASONABLE -- I
REALIZE WHAT THE OFFICERS SAY
IS NOT -- STANDARD --
TESTIFIED THEY HAVE TO THE
THEY HAD PROBABLE CAUSE HE WAS
ABOUT TO COMMIT A FELONY, ON A
-- BUT, THEY WERE JUST
DETAINING HIM, IT CERTAINLY,
CRITICAL ABOUT THE LAWFULNESS
OF THE SEARCH IF THERE WAS NO
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST HIM
BUT ONLY WITH -- YOU DO AGREE
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT --
>> IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THERE
WAS -- WHO TO HAVE THE RIGHT
TO DO THE FULL SEARCH INSTANT,
TO ARREST, WE HAVE TO HAVE
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, AND
THE STATE WOULD ASSERT THAT
THE POLICE OFFICERS, ALTHOUGH
KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THEIR PRO
SESSION AREN'TES INLY THE ONES
TO MAKE --
>> IT IS SORT OF LIKE WHAT WAS
IN HER MIND, BECAUSE IT THEN
THIS IDEA THAT HE COULD BE --
WHAT LETS ASSUME THAT -- HOW
DO YOU HAVE POSSESSION OF
COCAINE IF YOU DON'T FIND
COCAINE LETS ASSUME THEY
ARRESTED HIM FOR IT.
AND THEN, THEY NEVER FOUND THE
COCAINE.
OR IS THERE THE CRIME OF
POSSESSION OF YOU KNOW,
POSSESSION OF COCAINE OCCUR?
>> IT WOULD BE AN ATTEMPT, TO
DELIVER COCAINE.
THERE WAS CERTAINLY EVIDENCE
THAT CI HAD CONTACTED THIS
DEFENDANT, WITH THE INTENT TO
PURCHASE COCAINE?
>> HOW MUCH COCAINE?
IS THAT --
>> IN THE TRANSCRIPT THE
OFFICERS JUST SAY A QUAINT.
A QUANTITY, LATER IF YOU WANT
TO KNOW HOW MUCH WAS RECOVERED
FROM HIM, IT WAS 5.9 GRAMS,
ACCORDING TO THE ARREST
AFFIDAVIT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AFFIDAVIT.
>> WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT
THE IDEA AND YOU KNOW AGAIN
THIS IS -- ALWAYS -- TALK
ABOUT PRIVATE PARTS, YOU KNOW,
THAT -- THAT OFFICERS KNEW
THAT WHEN HE PEOPLE ARE GOING
TO HAVE A STREET SALE THAT THE
LIKELY PLACE THAT THEY ARE
GOING TO KEEP THE DRUGS IS IN
THEIR BUTTOCKS?
>> WELL THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY
SUPPRESSION HEARING CONCERNING
THAT, BUT, FROM READING THE.
>> HE CASES I HAVE -- RESEARCH!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RESEARCHING FOR THIS CASE,
KA-- CASE THAT DOES SEEM TO BE
A COMMONPLACE -- COMMONPLACE
WHERE DEFENDANTS STORE THEIR
-- SUPPLIES, FOR SELLING DRUGS
IT IS CONCEALED, AND THAT IS
NOT OBVIOUS TO THE PUBLIC.
>> BUT AS YOU SAID THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD, THAT
THESE OFFICERS BELIEVE DZ THAT
THIS WAS A PLACE WHERE DRUGS
ARE COMMONLY KEPT.
>> WELL IN THIS RECORD, WHAT
HAPPENED IS THEY -- THEY HE
WAS COMING TO THE SCENE TO
SELL COCAINE.
>> --
>> ANOTHER ISSUE, IS WHAT
THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME GAP IN
THIS RECORD, AS TO WHAT THE
CONVERSATION WAS, BETWEEN THE
CI, AND THIS PERSON CALLED D,
AND WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS
BETWEEN THE CI, AND THE
OFFICER.
SO WHERE DO WE HAVE -- AND
WHAT TESTIMONY BY HUMAN SAYS
THAT THIS -- BY WHOM SAYS THIS
WAS GOING TO BE A DRUG DEAL.
>> THE TESTIMONY WAS THE
OFFICER, OFFICER DANIEL,
PROVIDED THE CI WITH HIS
EXCUSE ME HER CELL PHONE THAT
SHE OVER HEARD THE $$CI'S SIDE
OF THE CONVERSATION BUT DID
NOT OVER HEAR --
>> WHAT WAS THE $$CI'S SIDE OF
THE CONVERSATION WAS SHE
ACTUALLY SAY WHAT THAT SIDE OF
THE CONVERSATION WAS?
>> I DON'T RECALL FROM THE
RECORD EXACT TESTIMONY AS TO
HIS YOU KNOW, EXACT WORDS --
IN THE CONVERSATION.
>> -- TO KNOW EVEN WHAT HE WAS
SAYING, SO THAT WE KNOW THAT
IN FACT A DRUG DEAL WAS BEING
TRANSACT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TRANSACTED, THAT ONE WAS GOING
TO BE TRANSACTED.
>> THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT
SHE OVER HEARD HIM ARRANGE$$!!ING A
DRUG BUY.
AND THAT AND THAT THEN HE
REPORTED THAT THE CI WOULD BE
COMING TO THAT LOCATION, AT
THE TEXACO STATION DRIVING A
FOUR-DOOR BROWN BOXY CHEVY,
AND THAT IT WOULD HE WOULD BE
COMING IN 15 MINUTES.
AND ALL THESE THINGS HAPPENED.
AND --
>> -- THERE IS SOME TESTIMONY
HERE THAT SOMEONE ELSE SHOWED
UP AT THIS -- GAS STATION --
FIT DESCRIPTION ALSO.
>> THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY THAT
ANOTHER PERSON WHO SHOWED UP
FIT THE DESCRIPTION THERE, WAS
TESTIMONY THAT WHILE THEY WERE
WHILE THEY WERE DOING THIS
DRUG BUY, ANOTHER PERSON WHO
THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORRANT
KNEW TO BE A DRUG DEALER ALSO
HAD PULLED INTO THIS SAME
TEXACO STATION.
AND PART OF THE SAME -- WHICH
IS A NARCOTICS DETECTION UNIT
IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, HAD
ALSO GONE IN INVESTIGATED THAT
INDIVIDUAL.
BUT THAT WASN'T A SUBJECT OF
THIS SUPPRESSION HEARING BUT
IT WOULD INDICATE THE -- THAT
THIS IS LIKE A HIGH DRUG AREA.
AND.
>> OFFICER DANIEL SAID IT WAS,
THAT -- THE TRIAL COURT IN
TERMS OF TRYING TO FIND OUT
WHETHER WE CONVERTED THIS INTO
A WHOLE DIFFERENT CASE, ABOUT
PROBLEM WILL CAUSE TO ARREST
AND THEN -- INCIDENT, THE
TRIAL COURT FOUND, THAT
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS
REALLY FALLS INTO JUSTICE
CANTERO!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
CANTERO'S QUESTION ABOUT WHEN
SEARCH WAS EXISTED TO JUSTIFY
A WARRANTLESS SEARCH BY MIRT
-- VIRTUE OF THE MOBILITY OF
THE VEHICLE AND THE CALLFANITY
AND THE SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME,
THAT THE POLICE HAD TO TAKE
CUSTODY OF HIM.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND, WHAT THAT
TIMING -- FINDING IS, BECAUSE
IF THEY YOU COULD POSSIBLY
ARREST HIM, AND PUT HIM INTO
AND THERE WAS 10 OR 12 PEOPLE
THERE, THE THERE WAS NO
MOBILITY -- THE CAR -- NEITHER
THE CAR NOR THE DEFENDANT WERE
GOING ANYWHERE, SO CAN YOU
EXPLAIN WHAT THAT YOU KNOW IS
THAT AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY?
IF YOU DON'T GET IT ON THE IF
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, HAS
THE -- STATE --
>> I BELIEVE WHAT WHAT THE
TRIAL COURT MAY HAVE BEEN
GETTING TO THERE IS THAT THE
DEFENDANT WAS GOING TO BE
TRANSPORTED IN A POLICE
VEHICLE, AND HE IS NOT -- DID
NOT WANT TO TRANSPORT SOMEONE
IN A POLICE VEHICLE, WITHOUT
KNOWING WHAT THEY HAVE THEN
OUR PERSON, WHETHER THEY ARE
GOING TO DISPOSE OF THAT
EVIDENCE, OR WHETHER THEY HAVE
SOME OTHER YOU KNOW, SOMETHING
HIDDENEN WEAPON, OR YOU KNOW!!$$!!!!!!
KNOW --
>> -- THEY ALREADY PATTED HIM
DOWN.
>> THEY PATTED HIM DOWN YEE
THEY FOUND A LARGE AMOUNT OF
CASH.
>> HOW WOULD HE DISPOSE OF IT
IN THE POLICE VEHICLE?
>> I SUPPOSE ON SOME
DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO
EAT THEIR PRODUCTS, AND -- I
SUPPOSE -- SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW,
GET THEM OFF THEIR PERSON
CLAIM IT WAS NOT THEIRS THAT
IT IS SOME OTHER PERSON,
COULDN'T HAVE BEEN MINE THINGS
LIKE THAT SO YOU DON'T WANT A
THE POLICE VEHICLE, WITH COMAD
THEY PRETTY MUCH KNEW HE HAD
IT BECAUSE HE HAD COME TO THE
SCENE TO SELL COCAINE, AND
THEY HADN'T FOUND IT IN THE
CAR THEY FOUND ALL THIS CASH.
AND --
>> HOW -- OIK.
>> LET ME GETTING TO STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION PART, THE
STATUTE DOESN'T SEEM TO
PROVIDE ANY REMEDIES FOR
VIOLATION IT JUST SEEMS NOT TO
EXCLUDE CIVIL REMEDIES COMMON
LAW REMEDIES BUT DOESN'T
PROVIDE ANY REMEDIES IN THE
STATUTE ITSELF, WOULD YOU
AGREE?
>> I AGREE THERE IS NO NO
PROVISION FOR AN EXCLUSION OF
EVIDENCE IN THE STATUTE YOU --
>> THERE IS NO PROVISIONS OR
ANYTHING WHAT IS I AM SAYING.
>> THERE IS PROVISION FOR A
PROVISION THAT IT DOES NOT
PREVENT THEM FROM SEEKING
CIVIL REMEDIES.
>> THAT IS THE ONE I
MENTIONED, THIS DOESN'T
EXCLUDE ANY CIVIL OR COMMON
LAW REMEDIES.
>> IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY,
THE STATE WOULD ASSERT THAT
THE REMEDIES, THAT WOULD BE
AVAILABLE, WOULD BE THOSE THAT
WOULD BE AE AVAILABLE UNDER
THE FOURTHALD AND IF A SEARCH
VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
THEN, IT WOULD -- YOU WOULD --
UNDER FOURTH AMENDMENT LAW FOR
SEARCH AND SEIZURES --
>> I MAINTAIN THE -- I
MAINTAIN IF IT IS SETTING
FORTH!!$$!!!!!!!!
FORTH, THIS IS HOW YOU SELL --
THE FIRST, STRIP SEARCH, AND
IT INDUSTRY$$!!!!ILATED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!INDUSTRILATED, AND THE --
VIOLATED AND THERE IS A
VIOLATION, BUT THERE IS NO
FOURTHAD VIOLATION, THEN THE
STATUTE CAN BE IGNORED AT
WILL.
>> --.
>> THE STATUTE TO BE IGNORED
AT WILL, THE $$STATE'S POSITION
THAT IT IS A STATUTE THAT
PROVIDES GUIDELINES
FORESEARCHES OF AND ALSO --
FOR THE STATE WOULD --
BACKTRACK BIT WE WOULD ASSERT
THAT THERE IS NO EXPRESS AND
DIRECT CONFLICT, WITH DF, THE
STATE FINDS THAT THIS -- THIS
STATUTE, PLAIN LANGUAGE,
INDICATES THAT 90120 -- CASES,
WHICH INVOLVE ARRESTS FOR
MINOR OFFENSES SUCH AS TRAFFIC
WARRANTS THINGS LIKE THAT,
WHICH IS THE -- DEFENDANT AND
-- THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE
IN THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THAT
STATUTE AS APPLIES TO THE CASE
THAT WOULD INVOLVE A FELONY
ARREST.
>> SO YOU ARE RELYING ON ONE
OF THE SUBSECTIONS THAT
OUTLINES WHEN IT APPLIES SO
THEREFORE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEREFORE, THIS HAS NO
APPLICATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
APPLICATION, TO THIS --
>> WELL.
>> CIRCUMSTANCE AT ALL IS THAT
THE $$STATE'S POSITION?
>> IF YOU READ THE STATUTE THE
FIRST WHERE IT IS DEFINING,
STRIP SEARCH IT SAYS UNDER
THIS SECTION, AND THAT SEEMS
TO BE DEFINING, THE STRIP
SEARCH.
FOR THE FOLLOWING SECTION
WHICH THEN FOR THE WHOLE
SECTION BUT THEN IT GOES ON TO
DISCUSS ARRESTS FOR MINOR --
>> THAT IS -- THAT YOU CAN'T
BE STRIP SEARCHED -- IF YOU
ARE ARRESTED FOR THESE MINOR
OFFENSES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OFFENSES.
>> CORRECT.
AND THAT IS THE CASE AS IN --
>> THAT DOESN'T ANSWER THE
QUESTION, HOWEVER, OF WHAT DO
YOU DO WHEN YOU DO HAVE A
STRIP SEARCH OF A PERSON RN
WHO IS ARRESTED FOR A FELONY,
AND IT IS A VIOLATION OF THIS
STATUTE.
>> IF SOMEONE -- IS STRIP A
FELONY ARREST STRIP SEARCHED
AND THAT STRIP SEARCH VIOLATES
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HIS
REMEDY IS SEEKING EXCLUSION
UNDER THE FOURTHALD.
NOT UNDER THIS STATUTE.
>> UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
IN ORDER TO BE -- THE SEARCH
WOULD HAVE TO BE A REASONABLE,
BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE, AND
SO WAS THIS SEARCH REALLY
REASONABLE?
I MAINTAIN SOME OF THE FACTORS
THAT YOU LOOK AT AS --
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SEARCH,
AND THE PLACE WHERE THE SEARCH
WAS CONDUCTED, AND THE MANR IN
WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED
AND HERE WE HAVE, OUT OF THE
-- OUT IN THE OPEN, SOMEONE --
PULLING, SOMEONE$$'S PRIVATE
UNDERWEAR AND EFREACHING THEIR
HAND IN, AND GETTING
SOMETHING, AND -- AS YOU
ACKNOWLEDGE, IN THIS RECORD,
THE OFFICERS DON'T SAY THAT
THIS IS A PLACE, WHERE PEOPLE
KEEP DRUGS ALL THE TIME.
SO IS THIS SEARCH REALLY
REASONABLE WHEN YOU TAKE THOSE
FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION?
>> THE $$STATE'S POSITION AT THE
SEARCH WAS REASONABLE, AND IF
YOU ANALYZE THE SEARCH ON THE
FACTORS AND THE SUPREME COURT
CASE -- WOLFISH, IT WAS
REASONABLE AT INCEPTION
BECAUSE THE OFFICERS HAT
PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE
JENKINS HAD COME TO THE SCENE
WITH COCAINE, EITHER ON HIS
PERSON OR IN THE CAR.
>> AND THEN ONCE THEY HAD --
THEY SEARCHED THE CAR, FOUND
NOTHING, SEARCHED HIS
PERSON -- PATTED HIS PERSON
DOWN, AND FIND NOTHING, HOW
YOU DO -- NOW PLAY INTO
PROBABLE CAUSE?
>> WELL THEY DID FIND WHEN --
AFTER THEY THE CAR THEY FOUND
THE CELL PHONE, WHICH HAD THE $$
OFFICER'S NUMBER ON IT WHEN
THEY PATTED HIM DOWN INITIALLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INITIALLILY THEY FOUND OVER
600 DOLLARS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$600 A-- CASH IN A POCKET,
THEY HAD -- THEY HAD REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT HE HAD COCAINE ON
HIS PERSON, AND I WOULD ASSERT
THAT THIS MOST LIKELY IS A
COMMONPLACE WHERE THEY FIND --
BECAUSE THAT IS THE FIRST
PLACE THE OFFICER LOOKED.
>> THE RECORD TELL US WHEN --
WHETHER THE TELEPHONE SEEMS TO
BE A REAL CONNECTOR HERE WAS
FOUND BEFORE OR AFTER THE
DRUGS WERE FOUND, AND IS THAT
IMPORTANT OR IS IT NOT.
>> THE PHONE WAS FOUND IN WHEN
THEY SEARCHED THE CAR BEFORE
THEY SEARCHED THE DEFENDANT.
>> AND THE TELEPHONE NUMBER
CAME UP BEFORE AS WELL?
>> THE RECORD FRANKLY IS NOT
CLEAR ON THAT SPECIFIC BIT OF
INFORMATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INFORMATION.
>> SO WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD
THAT SHOWS THE DIRECT
CONNECTION THEN AS FULLY AS IT
HAS BEEN DEVELOPED LATER.
>> BUT THERE IS I MAINTAIN --
THERE IS NO -- NUMBER OF TIMES
THERE IS NO -- THAT WE FOUND
THE NUMBER BEFORE WE --
SEARCHED HIM.
>> I'M CONFUSED ABOUT YOUR
ARGUMENT, IT SEEMS FIRST OF
ALL YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS NO
CONFLICT WITH DF -- BUT
ASSUMING THERE IS CONFLICT
WITH -- CONFLICT -- ARE YOU
SAYING, THAT SUBSECTION 34 --
3, 4, AND 5, DON'T APPLY TO
ALL THE STRIP AS MUCH AS THAT
ARE -- STRIP SEARCH THARZ DONE
IN THIS CASE.
>> THE STATE WOULD OBSER--
ASSERT THAT THE STATUTE IS
MEANT TO APPLY TO THOSE
SITUATIONS WHICH WHAT THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT IN SUBSECTION
TWO WHICH IS A PERSON'S
ARRESTED, FOR MISDEMEANOR
TRAFFIC.
>> HAS DID THE SECOND DISTRICT
INTERPRET THE STATUTE THAT
WAY.
>> NO THE SECOND DISTRICT --
INTERPRETED IT A DIFFERENT WAY
AND FOUND THAT THE ARREST THAT
AN ARRESTED PERSON ENCOMPASSED
ALL ARRESTED PERSONS.
>> THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS
STRIP SEARCH IS DEFINED BROAD!!$$!!!!!!!!
BROADLY IN SUBSECTION ONE,
THEN YOU GO TO THREE, AND THEN
IT GIVES THE REQUIREMENTS,
THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE GIVE THE
REQUIREMENTS OF HOW, STRIP AS
MUCH AS -- STRIP SEARCHED
SHALL BE PER FORMED, SECTION
TWO ONLY DEALS WITH LIMITING
WHO IS GOING TO BE STRIP
SEARCHED SO I DON'T REALLY --
PROBLEMS WITH THAT STATUTORY
ARGUMENT, MAINTAINING ALL --
LINKING ALL PROVISIONSES
TOGETHER.
>> THE STATE WOULD POINT OUT
THE LANGUAGE AT THE VERY
BEGINNING OF THAT DEFINITION,
WHICH SAYS UNDER THIS SECTION,
AND WOULD SEEM TO APPLY TO THE
DEFINITION BEING RESTRICTED TO
THIS SECTION OF THE STATUTE
901211 AND THE IMMEDIATE
FOLLOWING SECTION BEING THAT
DESCRIPTION OF WHAT TYPE OF
ARREST.
>> LET'S ASSUME WE GET PAST
THAT AND SAY THAT STATUTE DOES
APPLY!!$$!!!!!!!!
APPLY, I AM MORE INTERESTED IN
ON WOULD THINGS FIRST OF ALL
DF CAME OUT IN 1996, SAYING
THAT THE STATUTORY REMEDY IS
-- EXCLUSION -- I THOUGHT I
HEARD YOU SAY THAT NOT ONLY IS
NOT THAT THE REMEDY BUT THAT
THERE ISN'T ANY REMEDY FOR
SOMEBODY WHO HAS HAD A
STATUTORY VIOLATION.
IS THAT WERE A YOU ARE SAYING.
>> THE $$STATE'S POSITION IS
THAT THERE IS THE EXCLUSIONARY
RULE WAS NOT PERFORMED
APPROXIMATE -- PROVIDED AS
REMEDY THE REMEDY FOR A
VIOLATION WOULD BE, OF A STRIP
SEARCH THAT IS NOT A
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, AND
WOULD YOU HAVE TO ANALYZE ANY
STRIP SEARCH ASSERTED
VIOLATION OF SOMEONE$$'S RIGHTS
UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
>> YOU COULDN'T HAVE SO WHAT
YOU ARE SAYING IS THERE IS NO
STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION THAP
HE BROUGHT SO THERE SO, AGAIN,
THEN WE GO BACK TO WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING THIS WHOLE STATUTE
EVEN IF IT APPLIES IT REALLY
HAS GUIDELINES THAT HAVE NO
TEETH IN THEM.
>> WELL, IT DOES PROVIDE THAT
IT IS NOT PREVENTING SOMEONE
FROM FILING A CIVIL SUIT.
>> BUT YOU ARE SAYING THERE
WOULDN'T A CIVIL SUIT WOULD BE
BASED ON IF IT IS 1983
VIOLATION WOULD YOU HAVE TO
HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATION, IF IT IS A IF IT
DOESN'T UNDER LIKE MURPHY, THE
QUESTION IS IS THERE A --
STATUTORY VIOLATION, THIS
DOESN'T CREATE A STATUTORY
CAUSE OF ACTION EITHER, DOES
IT?
>> IT IS CREATES I MAINTAIN IT
SAYS YOU CAN PURSUE, CIVIL
REMEDIES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REMEDIES, I THINK THIS STATUTE
IS MORE PROVIDING THE
GUIDELINES AND HAS WAS A REACT!!$$!!!!!!!!
REACTION TO CASES WHICH ARE
SOME CITED BY SIMILAR CASES
CITED BY DEFENSE COUNCIL IN
HER BRIEF, WHERE -- COUNSEL IN
HER BRIEF WHERE PEOPLE WERE
BEING INDISCRIMINATELY
SEARCHED FOR MINOR OFFENSES,
AND I THINK THIS -- THIS
STATUTE WAS AN EFFORT TO
RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF STRIP
SEARCH THAT'S WOULD BE DONE
THAT THESE PEOPLE WHO WERE
BEING BROUGHT INTO -- IN FOR
MINOR OFFENSES THIS WAS NO
REASON TO BELIEVE --
>> DOESN'T -- IF IT APPLIED
LIKE IN DF WOULD YOU STILL SAY
THAT THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
A STATUTORY REMEDY, OR
EXCLUSIONARY RULE UNLESS A
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.
>> THE $$STATE'S IS REMEDY WOULD
BE THROUGH THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT EVEN DF THE $$COURT'S
OPINION -- SEEMS TO BE
ANALYZING IT'S UNDER A FOURTH
AMENDMENT STANDARD BUT IT DOES
NOT REACH THE FOURTH AMEND
QUESTION --
>> ONCE YOU START GETTING INTO
1983 ACTIONS IT IS NOT MERELY
WHETHER IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATION BUT WHETHER IT IS A
WELL ESTABLISHED SO THE FIRST
TIME IT HAPPENS, I MAINTAIN,
THERE IS NO REMEDY AT ALL,
BECAUSE -- REALLY IS NOT,
AREN'T THE 1983 ACTIONS VERY
FEW AND FAR BETWEEN WITH
REGARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THAT STATUTE REALLY?
>> I DON'T KNOW, ABOUT THE
NUMBER OF -- OF 19 # # I KNOW
SOME ACTIONS THAT ARE REVIEW!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
REVIEWED, WHILE PREPARING FOR
THIS CASE THE ARGUMENTS, TO
END TO DEAL WITH CLASS ACTIONS
ON BEHALF OF A NUMBER OF THE
DEFENDANTS SUCH AS ONE OF THE
CASES!!$$!!!!!!!!
CASES.
>> UNDER 1983?
>> UNDER 1983 OR THERE ARE
ALSO CASES WHERE THEY HAVE YOU
KNOW SUED I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW
A POLICE DEPARTMENT, OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OR
DAMAGES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
DAMAGES.
>> YES.
>> UNJUFRNIVE IN JUNKIVE
RELIEF!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
RELIEF.
>> YOU ARE OVER YOUR TIME I
WILL GIVE YOU A FEW MORE
MINUTES WE HAVE TAKEN A GREAT
DEAL OF TIME WITH QUESTIONS.
>> WELL, THE STATE WOULD I WAS
LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE O
COULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS,
SAID THAT THERE WAS QUANTITY
OF COCAINE, ACTUALLY RECOVERED
WAS 5.9 GRAMS ONE OF THE
JUSTICE PARIENTE DID HAVE THAT
QUESTION EARLIER.
>> BUT I WAS REFERRING TO WHAT
THEY KNEW AT THE TIME.
>> THEY JUST SAID QUANTITY AND
I MAINTAIN SOME OF THAT IS
BECAUSE, I THINK, I MAINTAIN
THE OFFICERS WHEN THEY ARE
TESTIFYING ARE TRYING TO BE
VERY YOU KNOW -- RESPECT
BELIEVE PRECISE SOMETIMES
LANGUAGE IS NOT ACTUALLY AS
DESCRIPTIVE AS WE WOULD LIKE.
AND CONCLUSION, THE JUSTICES
HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> JUST BRING THERE IS TOANO
CONCLUSION ARE YOU SAYING THAT
BUTLER IS THE CASE THAT AFFORD!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
AFFORDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN
ARREST, BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE
HAPPENED, AND YOUR CASE RISES
AND FALLS ON THAT THEORY, IS
THAT A FAIR --
>> FOR THIS -- FOR THE SEARCH,
WE KNEW PROBABLE CAUSE FOR
ARREST TO HAVE THIS SEARCH BE
PROPER BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT
WOULD JUST BE A TERRY STOP AND
THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO -- TO
FEEL SOMETHING, OR WOULD DO
LIKE THE PLAINFIELD --
SOMETHING MANIFEST THAT STOP
AND FRISK STATUE FOR EXAMPLE
DOES SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR
EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN
VIOLATION OF THAT.
>> AN UNUSUAL IS CASE -- AS
FAR AS WHAT THE POLICE DID,
AND NOT WAITING UNTIL THE
TRANSACTION HAD BEEN
COMPLETED, IS NOT THAT THE
YOUR PROCEDURE?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE USUAL
PROCEDURE, IN WHAT THEY INTEND!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
INTENDED TO DO IF THIS CASE
BUT IN THIS CASE THE
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, GOT --
AND RATHER THAN LETTING THE
DEFENDANTS GO ON HIS MERRY
WAY, THEY -- THEY CAME IN, AND
DETAINED HIM AND ARRESTED HIM,
AND IT WAS ON IDENTIFICATION
AND PREDICTABLE BE AHAVOR --
DEFENDANT HAD COME TO THE
SCENE WITH DRUGS.
>> MY COLLEAGUES HAVE NO OTHER
QUESTIONS WE THANK YOU FOR
YOUR ARGUMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MISS WILSON GIVE YOU A FEW
MORE MINUTES.
WE HAVE USED UP A LOT OF YOUR
TIME WITH OUR QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ONE MORE
QUESTION.
YOUR -- OPPONENT JUST SAID
THAT THE STOP AND IS FROMK LAW
-- FRIFK LAW DIFFERENT STATUTE
SAIRNLD CLOSE TO THIS ONE
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES IN
SUBSECTION 6.
NO EVIDENCE SEES BAIDZ LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN ANY
SEARCH UNDER THIS SECTION
SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST
ANY PERSON IN ANY COURT OF
THIS STATE OR POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION THEREOF, UNLESS
THE SEARCH I WOULD -- WHICH
DISCLOSED EXISTENCE WAS
AUTHORIZED BY AND CONDUCTED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF
SUBSECTIONSES TWO THROUGH
FIVE.
IT SEEMS THE LEGISLATURE KNEW
EXACTLY WHAT IT WANTED TO DO,
WHEN IT WANTED TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE THAT WAS OBTAINED IN
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE.
YET IT DIDN'T INCLUDE SUCH A
PROVISION HERE.
>> IT DIDN'T, AND I THINK,
THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW
THESE LAWS WERE ENACTED, I
BELIEVE THAT THAT LAW FIRST
CAME INTO BEING, RIGHT AFTER
THE TERRY DECISION CAME OUT.
WHICH WAS IN 1968.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS STATUTE
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT,
THAT IS IN 1981.
AND IN 1981, WE HAD HAD MATT
VERSUS OHIO WHICH ACLOOIDZ THE
EXCLUSIONARY RULE TO THE
STATES FOR 20 YEARS I THINK IT
IS JUST AS REASONABLE, THAT
THE LEGISLATURE, TO HAVE
BELIEVED AT THAT POINT,
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT
AMENDMENT IN OUR STATE
CONSTITUTION, WHERE WE ARE --
SAY CONSTITUTION UNDER THE
FOURTH IS THE SAME, WE DIDN'T
HAVE THAT TILL 82.
BUT IN 1981 I THINK IT IS JUST
AS REASONABLE THAT THE
LEGISLATURE BELIEVED THAT
STATES WOULD USE THAT
EXCLUSIONARY RULE IN THE CASE
WHERE THEY SAW FIT AND I
BELIEVE THIS IS SUCH A CASE.
>> WELL, SPEAKING OF THE WHAT
THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED IN
1981, IS NOT IT REASONABLE, AS
THE STATE ARGUES HERE, THAT
WHAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS DOING
IN RESPECT TO STRIP SEARCHES
WAS AIMING AT TRAFFIC OFFENSES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OFFENSES?
BECAUSE I THOUGHT HE THAT IN
THE SENATE STAFF ANALYSIS OF
THAT BILL, IT SAYS THAT THERE
HAS BEEN NO REPORTED APPELLANT
COURT DECISION IN FLORIDA
DEALING WITH A STRIP SEARCH
CONDUCTED ON A PERSON ARRESTED
FOR A TRAFFIC VIOLATION OR
MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE, AND THAT
IS WHAT THIS STATUTE THAT IS
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WAS
DEALING WITH, WAS STRIP
SEARCHES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SEARCHES, IN RESPECT TO
TRAFFIC OFFENSES.
>> ON THAT I'M NOT PRIVY TO
THAT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY BUT I
DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT THE
STATUTE DOES IN AND OF ITSELF,
I THINK, IT DOES ADDRESS THE
PROBLEM OF SUBJECTING PEOPLE
WHO ARE ARRESTED FOR MINOR
OFFENSES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OFFENSES, TO A STRIP SEARCH AT
ALL.
BUT THEN THE STATUTE IS MORE
EXPANSIVE AND EXPLAINS WHEN
THIS KINDS OF INVASIVE TYPE OF
SEARCH IS GOING TO OCCUR, BUT
IT ONLY OCCUR UNDER THESE!!$$!!!!!!!!
THESE9999SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.
NOW, THIS COURT HAS DECIDED IN
BEENFIELD AND JOHNSON, THAT
THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE CAN BE
APPLIED TO STATUTE, AND THERE
IS NOTHING IN THE RULES OF
EVIDENCE OF THIS STATE, WHICH
WHAT IS THIS COURT IS IN
CHARGE OF THAT PROHIBITS IT
FROM EXCLUDING THE EVIDENCE
FOR A STATUTORY VIOLATION.
THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND BY
WHAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT IN MY VIEW MAY DECIDE
SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE
IN A CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.
>> DON'T YOU MAINTAIN --
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK --
>> RIGHT -- IT IS USEFUL FOR
GUIDANCE OF COURSE, JUSTICES
VERY WELL EXPERIENCED
KNOWLEDGE BEING BUT NOT
BINDING PRECEDENT.
>> -- IF STATUTE WE ARE
INTERPRETING WE ARE FOUND BY
LEGISLATIVE INTENT IN ANN
ACCOUNTING THAT STATUTE;
RIGHT?
-- ENACTING THAT STATISTIC
RIGHT.
>> YES, YOU ARE.
>> IF LEGISLATURE CLEARLY
EXPRESSED ITS INTENT WHEN IT
DIVIDE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE
STAT IS NOT THAT SOME
INDICATION WHEN IT DOESN'T
INCLUDE THAT PROVISION IN THIS
STATUTE IT DIDN'T INTEND SUCH
CONSEQUENCE?
IN THE STAT FOR INSTANCE THAT
YOU RECEIVE TO JUSTICE CANTERO
THAT LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED
RIGHT AFTER TERRY AND PROVIDED
JUST AS TERRIZATION THAT THEY
WOULD EXCLUDE THAT EVIDENCE.
>> THAT WAS REDUNDANT TO
TERRY, BECAUSE --
>> IT POSSIBLY WAS BUT YOU ARE
TALKING ONLY A FEW, SEVEN
YEARS AFTER MATT VERSUS OHIO,
THIS IS A FAIRLY RECENT
DEVELOPMENT AT THAT TIME IN
THE LAW.
I THINK, AFTER 20 YEARS, YOU
ARE LOOKING AT THE LAW IN A
DIFFERENT WAY.
AND I THINK, THEREFORE, YOU
LOOK AT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT
IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
I BELIEVE, THAT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, OF THIS CASE,
THAT THERE IS AN EGREGIOUS
PUBLIC SITUATION THAT NEEDS TO
BE ADDRESSED BY THIS COURT AND
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE
PEOPLE HAVE COME TO THIS TOWN,
FROM ALL OVER THE STATE TO
ENACT GUIDELINES.
I THINK THEY ENACT LAWS.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT --
>> IF THE STATE INITIALLY HAD
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST AND,
THEREFORE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEREFORE, TO SEARCH, ALSO,
WOULD THIS BE AN INVALID OR
ARE YOU SAYING IT IS
UNREASONABLE EVEN IF THEY HAVE
PROBABLE CAUSE?
>> YES, IT IS A VIOLATION
UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
THE TYPE OF SEARCH PUBLIC
SEARCH THAT OCCURRED HERE.
SO EVEN IF THEY -- THERE ARE
LIMITS TO WHAT A POLICE CAN DO
TO A PERSON EVEN IF THEY HAVE
GROUNDS TO ARREST THEM --
THEM.
?
BECAUSE WHAT YOU SAID, IF IF
SO, THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO
DO A PUBLIC PLACE BUT NOW HE
IS ARRESTED, FOR -- WHATEVER
HE IS ARRESTED FOR -- WHATEVER
CRIME I WANT IS GOING TO BE A
FELONY AND -- HE I HAD BOOKED
IN, DON'T THEY HAVE A RIGHT AT
THAT POINT, TO PER FORM A YOU
KNOW, GOING TO BE GIVEN JAIL
-- ISSUED CLOTHING TAKE THE
CLOTHING AND -- IS NOT REALLY
A STRIP SEARCH THEY ARE DOING
NOBODY ARGUED THAT INEVITABLE
DISCOVERY WHY IS NOT IT
INEVITABLE DISCOVERY.
>> THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN
THESE KIND OF CASES THE
INSTITUTION WOULD TAKE OVER
THE PROBLEM YOU ARE ADDRESSING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ADDRESSINGS I PRIVACY
VIOLATION IN MANNER THERE IS
NOTHING THAT WOULD HAVE
PRECLUE THEY HAD POLICE FOR
INSTANCE, THERE ARE 8 OR TEN
OF THEM GOING THE GAS STATION
RESTROOM REMOVING ANYBODY THAT
MIGHT BE THERE TAKE$$!!ING MR.
JENKINS IN THERE CONDUCT THIS,
SO YOU ARE ENFORCING A STASHED
OF DECENCY THROUGH THIS
STATUTE, WE BELIEVE THAT IS
WHAT THE SURE INTENDED.
>> WITH OUR HELP OF YOU FAR
EXCEEDED YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH GOOD
QUESTIONS.
>> WE WILL TAKE THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENTS YOUR COUNCIL IS
MOST IMPORTANT TO US WE THANK
YOU FOR THE GOOD WORK THAT YOU
HAVE DONE COURT WILL STAND IN
RECESS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
RECESS.
.
>> ALL RISE.