 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Johnson3/21/2002
o occur in the future.
Without the threat of the exclusion of evidence, the incentive for a prosecutor to comply with section 395.3025(4)(d) is minimal. The statute does not create any other remedy for a violation of its procedures. The experience of an earlier generation was that alternative remedies to the exclusionary rule were "worthless and futile." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 652, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1690, 6 L. Ed.2d 1081 (1961); see also People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905, 911-12 (1955). Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from lawsuits for damages in the performance of their quasi-judicial functions of initiating or maintaining a prosecution. See Office of the State Attorney, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida v. Parrotino, 628 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1993); Hansen v. State, 503 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). If, as the state argues, a statutory violation could be erased by a later evidentiary showing of relevance, then convenience and expediency might overwhelm the privacy interests that the statute seeks to protect. Id. at 1132-33.
Thus, I agree with the majority's disapproval of Manney to the extent that the Fifth District would never preclude the State from using the evidence. ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
Page 1 2 3 4 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|