State v. ParsonsState v. Parsons
After the defendant was arrested, he was informed that he did not have to give consent
The trial court granted a motion to suppress the tangible evidence, based upon a finding of no probable cause to arrest the defendant and, therefore, the consent was tainted under the reasoning of Bailey v. State, 319 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1975); Taylor v. State, 355 So.2d 180 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); United States v. Jones, 475 F.2d 723 (5th Cir.1973).
We reverse as to all that occurred after the execution of the waiver and find that same was voluntarily signed. Husted v. State, 370 So.2d 853 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); State v. Champion, 383 So.2d 984 (Fla.4th DCA 1980); Bretti v. Wainwright, 439 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 943, 92 S.Ct. 293, 30 L.Ed.2d 257 (1971). The defendant was told he did not have to execute the waiver. Compare State v. Cobb, 243 S.E.2d 759 (N.C. 1978).
Therefore, the order granting the motion to suppress is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings in light of this opinion.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.