State v. Mitchell
124 So. 3d 1046
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- The State appeals an order denying suppression of Mitchell’s statements and physical evidence, which led to dismissal of drug conspiracy and trafficking charges.
- Temple Terrace Police Department allegedly investigated fraudulent prescriptions by crossing jurisdiction into Tampa and Hillsborough County without proper authority.
- The trial court found mutual aid agreements were violated and suppressed charges against coconspirators; Mitchell adopted those findings.
- The court relied on State v. Allen to support suppression due to out-of-jurisdiction conduct, but the facts here differ from Allen.
- The central issue is Mitchell’s standing to challenge the arrest and arising evidence, not the validity of the underlying drug offenses.
- On appeal, the State contends Mitchell lacked standing; Mitchell contends he may challenge violations affecting his rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge arrest outside jurisdiction | Mitchell contends he has a cognizable interest and privacy in the matter pleaded. | State argues Mitchell lacks standing to challenge co-defendant’s arrest or related rights. | Mitchell lacks standing; no proprietary/privacy interest shown. |
| Effect of mutual aid violations on standing to suppress | Mitchell argues violations taint evidence and warrant suppression. | State contends violations cannot confer standing to suppress co-defendant’s rights. | No standing to object to co-defendant’s rights despite potential mutual aid violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Allen, 790 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (suppression where warrant outside jurisdiction absent cooperation agreement)
- San Martin v. State, 705 So.2d 1337 (Fla.1997) (cannot challenge voluntariness of co-defendant’s statements)
- McKenney v. State, 388 So.2d 1232 (Fla.1980) (defendant cannot object to violations of another’s rights)
- Pinoamador v. State, 389 So.2d 317 (Fla.3d DCA 1980) (rights of informant cannot be vicariously asserted)
- Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969) (privacy rights of informant not cognizable by defendants)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (exclusionary rule considerations for privately obtained information)