Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Name:

E-mail:

Phone Number:

Zip Code:

Your Question:

Editor: Will Hanlon & Charlie Lambert
Profession: Tampa Defense Attorneys

Category: Legal Updates

The second district court of appeals in Jenkinsv. State certified a conflict with the fourth district when it ruled that suppression of evidence is not the proper sanction when law enforcement violates the strip search statute (Florida Statute 901.211(1)). The fourth district addressed this issue in 1996 when it ruled in D.F. v. State that evidence collected in violation of the statute should be suppressed. Until now the second district seemed to agree with the 4th district's interpretation of the statute. The first question brought to mind by the Court's ruling is how could the search violate the strip search statute and not violate the 4th Amendment?

Law enforcement had probable cause for the arrest due to the confidential informant's information as to the time and place of the drug deal, and his identification of Jenkins at the scene. Since the police had probable cause for an arrest based on their informant's information, it logically follows that search incident to that arrest would be legal.

However, the search conducted here involved removing the defendant's clothes in public. In justying the officers decision to conduct such a search the Court applied a balancing test described in a U.S. Supreme court decision from 1979 (Bell v. Wolfish). Ultimately, the Court determined that the need for the search outweighed the invasion of Jenkins personal rights, and was reasonable under the Fourth Amemdment.

The Court then decided that while the search conducted by law enforcement was a strip search, and in violation of Florida's strip search statute, this violation did not warrant suppression of the evidence. The Court's reasoning lied in the interpretation of the statute. Pargraph (6) of the statute states that, "Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting any statutory or common-law right of any person for purposes of any civil action or injunctive relief". According to the Court proper interpretation of this statute prevents them from applying the exclusionary rule. Where the legislature specifically allowed for only civil remedies in the statute the court cannot impose others. Hopefully Florida's Supreme Court will settle the conflict. Soon!!