Friday, April 22, 2011

"There was a negotiated plea agreement. There was a scoresheet. There was an oral pronouncement. There was a written judgment and sentence. ...

... There was confusion. We remand for clarification."

That first paragraph about sums it up this opinion from the 5th DCA. [HT:CC]

Speaking of state court opinions, thank goodness for the Florida Supreme Court. Two big criminal procedure opinions from that court dealing big blows to the use of drug sniffing dogs. The court said that 1) prosecutors must show that drug dogs are reliable before they can be used to obtain evidence from a car (Harris v. Florida) and 2) police must get a warrant before using drug sniffing dogs at the front door of someone's house (Jardines v. Florida).

The Fourth Amendment is not dead, at least in Florida.


Anonymous said...

yeah, but wait till the supremes get their hands on that latter one and reverse it. they like dogs up there. The reliability case however should stand up.

Rumpole said...

Stick to your side of the street shorty.

Kissimmee Kid said...

What this is really about is electronic reporting. When people reported court proceedings there was an effort to get it right. Now, we have machines rumbling on without anyone trying to see if a record is being made. When it 100% clear what was supposed to be said, the court can do this. What about when the record is not clear and the parties do not agree?

How many bad record reversals will it take to offset the perceived savings of electronic court "reporting?"