Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Ojeda

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 23, 2014No. 08-1079 & 08-1077Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRothenberg, J.

I agree entirely with the analysis and conclusion in lower tribunal case number 05-37152. As to case number 07-10526(A), the majority concludes that although the warrantless entry into the defendant’s home was unlawful, the evidence ultimately seized pursuant to a valid search warrant was admissible based on the independent source and/or inevitable discovery doctrines. While I agree with most of the majority’s analysis and its conclusion that, under the independent source and/or inevitable discovery doctrines, the evidence was admissible, I disagree with the finding that the entry of the…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API