Legal Opinion

Mestral v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 2, 2009No. 08-216PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.

The police took defendant-appellant Mestral into custody in his front yard and conducted a protective sweep inside his house. Because the police entered without consent, exigent circumstances, or a search warrant, the protective sweep was illegal. The motion to suppress evidence should have been granted.

A neighbor of the defendant called the police during the daytime to report a possible burglary in progress at the defendant’s home. The neighbor said there were two white males who appeared to be carrying objects out of the house, possibly drugs, and placing them in a vehicle in front of the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Michigan v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Maryland v. BuieSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Steagald v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Diaz v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
  2. Rowell v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
  3. Rozzo v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011
  4. STATE OF FLORIDA v. M. B. W.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API