Skip to main content

King v. State

Citations

  • 79 So. 3d 236
  • 2012 WL 513022
  • 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2407

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • reversing the denial of a motion to suppress where officers conducted a search of the defendant's safe after relying on improper consent by the defendant's wife to the search
  • “[L]aw enforcement may only rely on a person’s apparent authority to give consent [to search personal property] if such consent is reasonable given the totality of the circumstances.” (quoting Brock v. State, 24 So.3d 703, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
  • \[T]here is no right on the part of a third party to consent to a search of personal property belonging to another person unless there is evidence of both common authority over and mutual usage of the property.\ (alteration in original
  • “Here, the officer testified that he did not attempt to get a warrant, and the State presented no evidence suggesting that he did. Accordingly, the trial court could not rely on the [inevitable discovery] doctrine to support its denial of the motion to suppress.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Marstiller, Padovano, Wolf

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.