WPC:' ~ vhhi'C[|u_Qt޷(2^йH.aS_\A{ e1[oϏP`#JΚ* Rӕ.`å|X=Hp[kIՙq =9d<z!fc=^u@9ΰfronU/ 6I`8 I_S+i̒x4r+=kc\iM0 w7,fZ|:ĕܴF\#' DA0P)~o-켣2 >y3W@+e_<{mB~W}3 @K;~ }2؋/~RҲ J-ʁ`p ITҶq{L'.w$<^abQYLN>[ʁVpCr7}yOjˏ/9S]nZ.ظs08 0~ 0x 0k 0kq 0 0~v 0 0 0 0O 0 F 0P 01n 0C 0V 08 0 0 0O 0 0 0 0b 0U: % 0z 0b F 0=W 0F 0P 1* 0 1 0R 0C E! ! 0Z2! 0d! 1i! 1Y"#n # B# 0(# 1m$$4 ''w'!' m#'V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..^  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. ' `"CG Times 12ptXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS !    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S ($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS #  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1x?t2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper % z &(  XXXXX6/''*d66/''*d6\\ 1\\ 2\\ 3\\ 4\\ 5\\ 6\\ 7\\ 8\\ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  .+(2/$ 0!   )*(2$0 0 0 0 (<$0 0 0 0 0 $35;AGMU]c1I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)  CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)#|G' `"CG Times 12ptXXp Prk;XP d($# e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Demers - Co.Ed.'96  4 ' HELPDESK0HELPDESK .   䀞!0 U 0!  C + $#1C  @6FLORIDACONFERENCEOFCOUNTYCOURT `     `     h JUDGES@ >WINTEROF1995/1996 0   @ :PARTIALCRIMINALLAWUPDATE x @<<;By:JudgeDavidA.Demers      0-() Ї@FF8Copyright1996DavidA.Demers@>AllRightsReserved@::=INTRODUCTORYCOMMENTS   @G@22< I.PurposeofOutline. P     Thematerialcontainedinthisoutlinewaspreparedfortwopurposes:(1)toprovidea 0  structureforasegmentofajudicialcoursedealingwithrecentcriminalcasesandotherdevelopmentsand(2)toprovideareadyandrelativelyusefulsourceforjudgestoregularlyuseindealingwithcriminalmatters.@JJ< II.Courseobjectives.     Theobjectivesofthiscourseareasfollows:    1.Theparticipantswillbeabletomoreeffectivelyanticipateandruleonmattersthatcomebeforethemincriminalcases.  2.Theparticipantswillhaveabetterunderstandingofrecentdevelopmentsincriminallaw.  3.Theparticipantswillbeabletoquicklylocateauthoritiesintheareasofcriminallawthatarecoveredthroughtheuseofthisoutline.@; III.Commentsonoutline. @   Thisoutlinecovers:(1)someU.S.SupremeCourtdecisions;(2)ManyFloridaSupreme   CourtopinionsandDistrictCourtopinionspublishedintheSouthernReporterfrom650So.2dto658So.2d.Thiscoversmanyofthecasesfor1995uptoaboutAugustof1995.Pleasenotethattherearemanydecisionsthathavenotbeenincludedinthisoutlinefromthecoveredperiod,buttheymayappearinfutureoutlines.Sometopicshavebeenleftvacateforfutureuse.  Therearecertainareasthatarenotcoveredduetotheneedtoplacesomelimitationsonthescopeofthematerial.Thoseareasinclude:mattersrelatingexclusivelytocapitalcases,sentencingguidelines,forfeitures,postconvictionrelief,andavarietyofspecificoffenses.  Thelawchangesrapidlysoitiswisetoshepardizethesecasesbeforeyourelyonthem.Severaldecisionsfromprioroutlinesareincludedforvariousreasons,buttheoutlineisnotcumulative.  Anycommentsthatmightimprovethismaterialorcoursearewelcome.Suchcommentsmaybeprovidedbyletterorbytelephone. -@), Ї   `     h      p JudgeDavidA.Demers     `     h      p St.Petersburg,Florida   `     h      p (813)5827836 x   @? TABLEOFCONTENTS   (  8   DISCOVERY#L"L"{(#.\ \   #1   8  0`     Applicationofdiscoveryrules#L"L"{(#.7` ` #1 p 8  0`     Whatmustbedisclosed?#L"L"{(#.0` ` #1 `  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Impeachmentandrebuttalmaterial#L"L"{(#.ppB #1 P  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Criminalrecordsandacts#L"L"{(#.: #1 @  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Statements#L"L"{(#. + #1 0  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Confidentialinformants#L"L"{(#.8 #1  p  8  0`     Statementofparticulars#L"L"{(#.1` ` #2 `  8  0`     Richardsoninquiry#L"L"{(#. +` ` #2 P  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Whenisitrequired?#L"L"{(#.5 #2 @  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Sufficiency#L"L"{(#. , #3 0  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Discoveryviolations#L"L"{(#.5 #4   8  0`   0 ` `  ` Harmlesserror#L"L"{(#.((/ #4  8  0`     BradyViolations&RelatedMatters#L"L"{(#.;` ` #5  8  0`     Sanctions#L"L"{(#. "` ` #5  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Dismissal#L"L"{(#.t t * #5  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Witnessexclusion#L"L"{(#.2 #5  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Continuances#L"L"{(#. - #6 p 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Speedytrialdischarge#L"L"{(#.hh7 #6 ` 8  0`     Depositions#L"L"{(#. $` ` #6 P  8   SPEEDYTRIAL#L"L"{(#.p p   #6 0  8  0`     Whentimebeginstorun#L"L"{(#.0` ` #7  p 8  0`     Application#L"L"{(#. $` ` #7 ` 8  0`     Demands#L"L"{(#. ` ` #7 P 8  0`     Waiver,extensions,&tolling#L"L"{(#.6` ` #7 @ 8  0`     Availability#L"L"{(#. %` ` #8 0 8  0`     MotionsforDischarge#L"L"{(#.<<.` ` #8   8  0`   0 ` `  ` Generally#L"L"{(#.x x * #8 ! 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Prose#L"L"{(#.` ` ' #9 "  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Discoveryviolation#L"L"{(#.4 #9 #! 8  0`     Constitutionalrighttospeedytrial#L"L"{(#.=` ` #9 $"  8   SEARCHANDSEIZURE#$"$"{(#. "  #10 p&!$  8  0`     Generalprinciples#$"$"{(#. +` ` #10 `'"% 8  0`     Thresholdissuesandproceduralconsiderations#$"$"{(#.G` ` #10 P(#& 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Sufficiencyanduseofthemotionandprocedure#$"$"{(#.P #10 @)$' 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Credibility#$"$"{(#. , #10 0*%( 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Remedy#$"$"{(#. ' #11  +p&) 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Subjectsofsuppression#$"$"{(#.8 #11 ,`'* 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Governmentagents#$"$"{(#.2 #11 -P(+ 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Expectationofprivacy,propertyinterest&standing#$"$"{(#.  U #11 -@), 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Detention,Search&Seizure#$"$"{(#.= #12  8  0`     Warrants#$"$"{(#. !` ` #15  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Sufficiencyoftheaffidavit#$"$"{(#.= #15  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Sufficiencyofwarrant#$"$"{(#.7 #16  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Executionofwarrant#$"$"{(#.5 #16 p 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  KnockandAnnounce#$"$"{(#.<  #16 `  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Areaandpersonstobesearched#$"$"{(#.I  #16 P  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Roleofofficers#$"$"{(#.:  #16 @  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Searchofahome#$"$"{(#.1 #16 0  8  0`     Exceptionstowarrantrequirement#$"$"{(#.  :` ` #16  p  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Consensualencounters#$"$"{(#.6 #16 `  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Schoolsandstudents#$"$"{(#.5 #18 P  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Investigatorystops#$"$"{(#.XX4 #18 @  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Generalprinciples#$"$"{(#.<  #18 0  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Specifickindsofinformationandobservations#$"$"{(#.X  #18   8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    Highcrimeareaorcontactwithcriminal#$"$"{(#.Zh h #18  8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    Tips,informants,andBOLOS#$"$"{(#.Mh h #21  8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    Othercircumstances#$"$"{(#.Eh h #25  8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    Specificoffenses#$"$"{(#.ppCh h #25  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Righttosearch,seize,°reeofrestraint#$"$"{(#.W  #25  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Consent#$"$"{(#. ( #25 p 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Burdenandstandards#$"$"{(#.>  #26 ` 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Authoritytoconsent#$"$"{(#.<<>  #26 P 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Voluntariness#$"$"{(#.7  #26 @ 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Scope#$"$"{(#. /  #26 0 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Incidentaltoarrestorprobablecause#$"$"{(#.00G #27  p 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Lawfulnessofarrest#$"$"{(#.44>  #27 ` 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Probablecause#$"$"{(#.||8  #27 P 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Proximitytotimeandplaceofarrest#$"$"{(#.||O  #28 @ 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Plainvieworopenview#$"$"{(#.((8 #28 0 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Abandonment#$"$"{(#. , #29   8  0`   0 ` `  ` Exigentcircumstances#$"$"{(#.xx6 #30 ! 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Motorvehiclesandboats#$"$"{(#.``9 #31 "  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Generalrules#$"$"{(#.7  #31 #! 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Stopsfortrafficoffensesordrivingbehavior#$"$"{(#.X  #31 $" 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Investigatorystop#$"$"{(#.dd<  #31 % # 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Probablecause#$"$"{(#.||8  #33 p&!$ 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Incidentaltoarrest#$"$"{(#.>  #33 `'"% 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Durationofstopandscopeofsearch#$"$"{(#.ppN  #33 P(#& 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  PretextualStop#$"$"{(#.9  #34 @)$' 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Subjectofsearch#$"$"{(#.,,;  #39 0*%( 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Roadblocks#$"$"{(#.dd4  #40  +p&) 8  0`     Exceptionstoconstitutionalrequirements#$"$"{(#.,,B` ` #40 ,`'* 8  0`   0 ` `  ` "GoodFaith"exception#$"$"{(#.7 #40 -P(+ 8  0`   0 ` `  ` InevitableDiscovery#$"$"{(#.5 #41 -@), 8  0`     Electronicsurveillance#$"$"{(#.HH0` ` #43   8   ADMISSIBILITYOFSTATEMENTSANDCONFESSIONS#$"$"{(#.<<;  #44   8  0`     Privilegeagainstselfincrimination#$"$"{(#.00=` ` #44  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Application#$"$"{(#.  , #44 p 8  0`   0 ` `  ` CustodialinterrogationbypoliceagentsforpurposesofMiranda#$"$"{(#.a #44 `  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Invocationofrights#$"$"{(#.5 #46 P  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Voluntarinessofstatement#$"$"{(#.; #47 @  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Unlawfularrestorentryintohome#$"$"{(#.C #48 0  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Impeachment#$"$"{(#. , #48  p  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Commentonexerciseofrighttoremainsilent#$"$"{(#.N #48 `  8  0`     RighttoCounsel#$"$"{(#.h h )` ` #49 P  8  0`     AccidentReportPrivilege#$"$"{(#.PP2` ` #49 @  8  0`     CorpusDelicti#$"$"{(#. '` ` #49 0  8  0`     Otherprivilegedcommunications#$"$"{(#.8` ` #49   8  0`     Electronicsurveillanceofconversations.#$"$"{(#.44C` ` #49   8   PRETRIALMATTERS#$"$"{(#.   #50   8  0`     Righttoeffectiveassistanceofcounsel#$"$"{(#.hhA` ` #50  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Righttocounsel#$"$"{(#.1 #50  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Natureofright#$"$"{(#.9  #50 p 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Waiver#$"$"{(#.0  #50 ` 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Righttoappointedcounsel#$"$"{(#.; #50 P 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Selfrepresentation#$"$"{(#.XX4 #51 @ 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Interferencewithright#$"$"{(#.8 #55 0 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Dealingwithproblemswithcounsel#$"$"{(#.C #55  p 8  0`     Preliminaryhearings#$"$"{(#. -` ` #61 ` 8  0`     Pretrialrelease#$"$"{(#. )` ` #61 P 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Delayinfilingcharges#$"$"{(#.8 #61 @ 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Righttobail#$"$"{(#.\ \ . #61 0 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Settingofbail#$"$"{(#. 0 #61   8  0`   0 ` `  ` Estreature&forfeitureofbond#$"$"{(#.XX@ #61 ! 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Modification&revocation#$"$"{(#.: #62 "  8  0`     Disqualificationofthejudgeorprosecutor#$"$"{(#.D` ` #63 #! 8  0`     Severanceandconsolidation#$"$"{(#.4` ` #65 $" 8  0`     MotionsToDismiss#$"$"{(#. +` ` #65 % # 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Deficiencyinchargingdocumentorprocedure#$"$"{(#.@@M #65 p&!$ 8  0`   0 ` `  ` PretrialIntervention#$"$"{(#.6 #66 `'"% 8  0`   0 ` `  ` (C)(4)Motion#$"$"{(#. . #67 P(#& 8  0`   0 ` `  ` DoubleJeopardy#$"$"{(#.0 #68 @)$' 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Generalprinciples#$"$"{(#.<  #68 0*%( 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Waiver#$"$"{(#.0  #69  +p&) 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  MultipleProsecutions#$"$"{(#.?  #69 ,`'* 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Multiplechargesinthesameprosecution#$"$"{(#.R  #72 -P(+ 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Mistrialbasedonmanifestnecessity#$"$"{(#.<<N  #73 -@), 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  CollateralEstoppel#$"$"{(#.=  #73  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Sentencing#$"$"{(#.,,4  #74  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Constitutionality#$"$"{(#.2 #74  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Limitations#$"$"{(#. , #76  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Mattersrelatingtothevalidityoftheapprehensionofthedefendant#$"$"{(#.f #77 p 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Conductofinformantsandlawenforcementofficers.#$"$"{(#.U #77 `  8  0`     0` ` ` Competency#$"$"{(#.T T +` ` #77 P  8  0`     Venue#$"$"{(#.  ` ` #79 @  8  0`     Continuances#$"$"{(#.H H %` ` #79 0  8  0`     Changesofplea#$"$"{(#.$ $ (` ` #79  p  8  0`     Absenceofdefendant#$"$"{(#. -` ` #81 `   8   COMMONEVIDENTIARYPROBLEMSARISINGDURINGTRIAL#$"$"{(#.||@  #82 @   8  0`     Relevanceandprejudice#$"$"{(#.0` ` #82 0  8  0`     Hearsay#$"$"{(#. ` ` #83   8  0`   0 ` `  ` Whatconstituteshearsay?#$"$"{(#.: #83  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Spontaneousstatementsandexcitedutterances#$"$"{(#.N #83  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Testimonyastowhatwitnesswastoldtoprovidelogicalsequence#$"$"{(#.b #84  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Priorconsistentstatements#$"$"{(#.< #84  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Priorinconsistentstatements#$"$"{(#.xx> #84  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Statementsformedicaldiagnosisandtreatment#$"$"{(#.ddO #84 p 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Priortestimony#$"$"{(#.PP0 #84 ` 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Businessrecords#$"$"{(#.1 #85 P 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Childabusecases#$"$"{(#.2 #85 @ 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Statementsagainstinterest#$"$"{(#.< #86 0 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Activitiesofapublicoffice#$"$"{(#.  > #86  p 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Conspiracy#$"$"{(#. + #86 ` 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Invitedresponse#$"$"{(#.1 #87 P 8  0`     Impeachment#$"$"{(#.H H $` ` #87 @ 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Subjectofimpeachment#$"$"{(#.7 #87 0 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Criminalhistoryandpriorbadacts#$"$"{(#.D #90   8  0`   0 ` `  ` Circumstancesshowingbias#$"$"{(#.XX; #91 ! 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Statements#$"$"{(#. + #91 "  8  0`     Othercrimesorbadactsassubstantiveevidence#$"$"{(#.xxI` ` #91 #! 8  0`     Otherbadactsandothergoodacts#$"$"{(#.;` ` #93 $" 8  0`     Taperecordings#$"$"{(#.( ( (` ` #94 % # 8  0`     Character#$"$"{(#.  "` ` #94 p&!$ 8  0`     Privilegedcommunications#$"$"{(#.2` ` #94 `'"% 8  0`     EyewitnessIdentification#$"$"{(#.2` ` #95 P(#& 8  0`     Credibility#$"$"{(#.t t $` ` #95 @)$' 8  0`     Evidenceofevasionofprosecution#$"$"{(#.88;` ` #95 0*%(  8   SCIENTIFICEVIDENCEANDOPINIONTESTIMONY.#$"$"{(#.XX:  #96 ,`'*  8  0`     Predicateandstandardsforexpertopinion.#$"$"{(#.D` ` #96 -P(+ 8  0`     Typesofscientificevidence#$"$"{(#.5` ` #98 -@), 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Polygraph#$"$"{(#. * #98  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Batteredwoman'ssyndrome#$"$"{(#.ll: #98  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Sexoffenderprofiles#$"$"{(#.6 #98  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Psychologicaltestimonyastovictim#$"$"{(#.E #98  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Childabusecases#$"$"{(#.2 #98 p 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Hypnoticallyrefreshedtestimony#$"$"{(#.A #99 `  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Differenttheories#$"$"{(#.3 #99 P  8  0`     LayOpinion#!!{(#. $` ` #100 @  8  0`     Appointmentofexpert#!!{(#.@@.` ` #100 0   8   OTHERISSUESARISINGDURINGTHETRIALORSUBSEQUENTTOTRIAL `  #!!{(#.  #101 8  0`     Jurymatters#!!{(#. %` ` #101 @  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Waiver#!!{(#. ' #101 0  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Discriminationinchallenges#!!{(#.tt= #101   8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Meetinginitialburden#!!{(#.@  #101  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Properprocedure#!!{(#.@@:  #103  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Sufficiencyofreasonsforchallenge#!!{(#.,,N  #103  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Remedy#!!{(#.PP0  #104  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Voirdire#!!{(#.L L * #104  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Juryselectionandmultiplejuries#!!{(#.C #104 p 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Challengesforcause#!!{(#.5 #104 ` 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Timeforandmatterofchallenges#!!{(#.88B #109 P 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Juryinstructions&contact#!!{(#.< #109 @ 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Standardinstructions#!!{(#.dd?  #109 0 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Instructionsonelementsanddefenses#!!{(#.O  #109  p 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Lesserincludedinstructions#!!{(#.F  #110 ` 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Waiver#!!{(#.0  #110 P 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Unusualinstructionsormodifications#!!{(#.O  #110 @ 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Specialinstructions#!!{(#.>  #111 0 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Curativeandlimitinginstructions#!!{(#.hhL  #111   8  0`   0 ` `  ` Jurymisconductorproblems#!!{(#.< #111 ! 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Jurydeliberations#!!{(#.3 #112 "  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Juryverdict#!!{(#.( ( - #112 #! 8  0`     Presenceofdefendantandthejudge#!!{(#.<` ` #112 $" 8  0`     Presentationofevidence#!!{(#.1` ` #114 % # 8  0`     Competencyofwitnesses#!!{(#.0` ` #115 p&!$ 8  0`     ConfrontationandCrossexamination#!!{(#.<` ` #116 `'"% 8  0`     RedirectandRebuttal#!!{(#. .` ` #116 P(#& 8  0`     Impropercomments#!!{(#.l l *` ` #117 @)$' 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Bythejudge#!!{(#.h h - #117 0*%( 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Bytheprosecutorordefensecounsel#!!{(#.  E #117  +p&) 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Byawitness#!!{(#.d d - #118 ,`'* 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Invitederrororresponse#!!{(#.HH: #119 -P(+ 8  0`     Circumstantialevidence#!!{(#.0` ` #120 -@), 8  0`     Closingarguments#!!{(#. *` ` #121  8  0`     Reductionofcharges#!!{(#. -` ` #121  8  0`     Sufficiencyoftheevidence#!!{(#.4` ` #121  8  0`     MotionsforJudgmentofAcquittal#!!{(#.:` ` #121   8   OFFENSES#!!{(#.  #122 `   8  0`     Obstructingandopposing#!!{(#.001` ` #122 P  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Legalduty#!!{(#. + #122 @  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Defendant'sconduct.#!!{(#.hh6 #122 0  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Juryinstructions#!!{(#.2 #124  p  8  0`     Contempt#!!{(#. !` ` #124 `  8  0`     LoiteringandProwling#!!{(#.xx/` ` #127 P  8  0`     Alcoholrelatedoffensesnotinvolvingdriving#!!{(#.G` ` #130 @  8  0`     Escape#!!{(#.< < ` ` #131 0  8  0`     DUI&BUI.#!!{(#.\ \ $` ` #131   8  0`   0 ` `  ` Elements#!!{(#.H H ) #131  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Admissibilityofchemicaltestsresults#!!{(#.ttH #131  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Natureoftest#!!{(#.8  #131  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Basisforprobablecause#!!{(#.xxB  #131  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Validityofthestop#!!{(#.>  #131  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Sufficiencyofregulations#!!{(#.D  #131 p 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Compliancewithregulations#!!{(#.E  #131 ` 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Forcibleextractionunderimpliedconsentlaw#!!{(#.\\W  #132 P 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  AlternativetoImpliedConsentLaw#!!{(#.00L  #132 @ 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Preservationofevidence#!!{(#.B  #133 0 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Righttocounsel#!!{(#.1 #135  p 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Statements#!!{(#. + #135 ` 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Selfincrimination#!!{(#.xx<  #135 P 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  AccidentReportPrivilege#!!{(#.C  #137 @ 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  CorpusDelicti#!!{(#.``8  #138 0 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Multipleconvictions.#!!{(#.,,6 #138   8  0`   0 ` `  ` FieldSobrietyProcedures#!!{(#.: #141 ! 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Otherevidence#!!{(#.,,/ #142 "  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Refusals#!!{(#. ) #142 #! 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Instructions#!!{(#.  - #143 $" 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Closingargument#!!{(#.1 #143 % # 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Sentencing#!!{(#. + #143 p&!$ 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Constitutionalityofimpoundmentstatute#!!{(#.R  #143 `'"% 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Enhancementofsentencebasedonpriorconvictions#!!{(#.hh\  #143 P(#& 8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    Uncounseledpleas#!!{(#.Ch h #143 @)$' 8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    validityofpriorconvictions#!!{(#.Oh h #143 0*%( 8  0`     Othermotorvehiclerelatedoffenses#!!{(#.=` ` #144  +p&) 8  0`     Drugcases#!!{(#. #` ` #144 ,`'* 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Intenttosell#!!{(#.\ \ / #144 -P(+ 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Knowledge#!!{(#. * #144 -@), 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Actualpossession#!!{(#.2 #145  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Constructivepossession#!!{(#.8 #145  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Proofofnatureofsubstance#!!{(#.dd= #146  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Conspiracy#!!{(#. + #146  8  0`     Propertycrimes#!!{(#.  (` ` #146 p 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Theftrelatedoffenses#!!{(#.HH7 #147 `  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Badcheckcharges#!!{(#.DD2 #147 P  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Trespass&burglarycharges#!!{(#.< #147 @  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Criminalmischief#!!{(#.2 #147 0  8  0`     Telephonecalls#!!{(#. (` ` #147  p  8  0`     Violentcrimes#!!{(#. '` ` #148 `  8  0`     Weapons#!!{(#. ` ` #148 P  8  0`     Sexuallyrelatedoffenses#!!{(#.2` ` #149 @  8  0`     Witnesstampering#!!{(#. *` ` #149 0   8   DEFENSES#!!{(#.  #150   8  0`     Entrapment#!!{(#. #` ` #150  8  0`     Alibi#!!{(#.` ` #150  8  0`     Selfdefense#!!{(#. %` ` #150  8  0`     Mentalcondition#!!{(#.p p )` ` #150  8  0`     Voluntaryintoxication#!!{(#.00/` ` #151 p  8   PENALTY#!!{(#.dd  #152 P  8  0`     Procedure#!!{(#.@ @ "` ` #152 @ 8  0`     Factorsthatthecourtmayconsider#!!{(#.HH<` ` #152 0 8  0`     Licensesuspension#!!{(#.  +` ` #152  p 8  0`     Concurrentvs.Consecutivesentences#!!{(#.=` ` #152 ` 8  0`     Creditfortimeserved#!!{(#./` ` #154 P 8  0`     HabitualOffenders#!!{(#.  +` ` #154 @ 8  0`     Modificationorenhancement#!!{(#.``4` ` #154 0 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Termsofpleaagreement#!!{(#.PP8 #154   8  0`   0 ` `  ` Misdemeanortofelony#!!{(#.6 #154 ! 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Vindictiveness#!!{(#./ #155 "  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Time#!!{(#.  % #155 #! 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Conditionsofprobation#!!{(#.8 #156 $" 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Priorconvictions#!!{(#.2 #156 % # 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Mandatoryminimumsentences#!!{(#.PP< #156 p&!$ 8  0`     Splitsentences#!!{(#. (` ` #156 `'"% 8  0`     Illegalsentence#!!{(#. )` ` #157 P(#& 8  0`     Probationandcommunitycontrol#!!{(#.8` ` #157 @)$' 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Nature&Application#!!{(#.LL5 #157 0*%( 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Term#!!{(#.  % #157  +p&) 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Conditions#!!{(#. + #158 ,`'* 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Announcementontherecord#!!{(#.D  #158 -P(+ 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Validityofproperlyannouncedconditions#!!{(#.00S  #162 -@), 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Meaningofconditions#!!{(#.?  #166  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Violationsofprobation#!!{(#.8 #166  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Waiver&ValidityofCondition#!!{(#.H  #166  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Jurisdiction#!!{(#.``6  #168  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Sufficiencyofaffidavit#!!{(#.B  #168 p 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  RightsofDefendant#!!{(#.$$=  #169 `  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Procedureathearing#!!{(#.TT>  #173 P  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  RulesofEvidence#!!{(#.;  #173 @  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Willful&substantialviolation#!!{(#.hhI  #174 0  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Sufficiencyofevidence#!!{(#.44A  #174  p  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Judgment,OrderofRevocation,&Sentence#!!{(#.S  #174 `  8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    Form#!!{(#.6h h #174 P  8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    Nonwillfulviolations#!!{(#.Hh h #175 @  8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    Additionalprobation#!!{(#.Fh h #175 0  8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    Creditfortimeserved#!!{(#.  Hh h #183   8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    Otheroptions#!!{(#.dd?h h #185  8  0`     Costsandfees#!!{(#. '` ` #185  8  0`     Restitution#!!{(#.t t $` ` #188  8  0`   0 ` `  ` Procedure#!!{(#. * #188  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Timeforsetting#!!{(#.:  #188  8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Noticeandopportunitytobeheard#!!{(#.L  #188 p 8  0`   0 ` ` 0  Righttocounsel#!!{(#.:  #189 ` 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Delegation#!!{(#. + #189 P 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Waiver#!!{(#. ' #189 @ 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Victims,TypesofCases,andCausation#!!{(#.,,G #189 0 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Abilitytopay#!!{(#. / #190  p 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Amount#!!{(#. ' #190 ` 8  0`   0 ` `  ` Collection#!!{(#. + #191 P  8   POSTCONVICTIONRELIEF#!!{(#.%  #193 0  8  0`     MotionforPostConvictionRelief#!!{(#.:` ` #193   8  0`     Sealingofrecords#!!{(#. +` ` #193 ! 8  0`     MotionsforNewTrial#!!{(#.PP.` ` #193 "  8  0`     ReturnofProperty#!!{(#. +` ` #193 #! 8  0`     Appeals#!!{(#. ` ` #193 $"  C   p&!$  7XXdXXd7 2  I  .3  0   DISCOVERY .(#(#   2  A  .3  0 `  Applicationofdiscoveryrules . ` (#` (#    ` 2  1  .3  0 Theserulesfordiscoveryonpostconvictionmattershavebeenissued:(1) p  "'Onamotionwhichsetsforthgoodreason...thecourtmayallow `  limiteddiscoveryintomatterswhicharerelevantandmaterial,andwherethediscoveryispermittedthecourtmayplacelimitationsonthesourcesandthescope.'" (2)Thetrialjudgeshallconsiderthesefactorsin 0  decidingwhethertoallowlimiteddiscovery:(a)theissuespresented;(b)theelapsedtimebetweentheconvictionandthepostconvictionhearing;(c)anyburdensplacedontheopposingpartyandwitnesses;(d)alternativemeansofsecuringtheevidence;and(e)anyotherrelevantfacts.(3)Thetrialjudgehastheinherentauthoritytopermitsuchdiscovery upona 0  showingofgoodcause andthisisnotanexpansionofeitherRule3.850   orRule3.220.(4) "[A]partymaybeallowedtotakepostconviction  depositionsofthejudgewhopresidedoverthetrialonlywhenthetestimonyofthepresidingjudgeisabsolutelynecessarytoestablishfactualcircumstancesnotintherecord,providedtherequirementssetforthabovearefulfilledandthejudge'sthoughtprocessisnotviolated." Statev.Lewis ,656So.2d1248(Fla.1995).p (# (#    2  B  .3  0 `  Whatmustbedisclosed? $P` (#` (#     ` 2  1  .3  0  Impeachmentandrebuttalmaterial .0 (# (#     ` 2  2  .3  0  Criminalrecordsandacts . P (# (#    `     ` 2  3  .3  0  Statements .   (# (#    `  2  a  .3  0  Anoralstatementmadebythestate'sexpertwitnessisnot "  discoverable."Whenweread[rules]3.220(a)(1)(ii)(1988)and3.220(a)(1)(x)(1988),intandem,weareleadtotheconclusionthatthereferenceto'statements'islimitedtowrittenstatementsorcontemporaneouslyrecordedoralstatements."Watsonv. p&!$ State ,651So.2d1159(Fla.1994). `'"%(#(#    `    ` 2  4  .3  0  Confidentialinformants |. @)$' (# (#    `  2  a  .3  0  Beforethestatewillbecompelledtodiscloseaconfidential  +p&) informantthedefense "mustnotonlyallegethespecificdefense ,`'* soughttobeproved,butmustalsosupportthatdefensewithswornproof. Thebestprocedureisforthecourttoconductan in  camerahearing. Statev.Burns ,651So.2d717(Fla.2dDCA  1995). (#(#    `  2  b  .3  0  Thedefensefiledamotiontocompeldisclosureofaconfidential `  informant.Itwasgrantedbasedonastipulationthattheinformantwaspresentduringtheinvolveddrugtransaction.Whenthestatefailedtocomply,thetrialjudgedismissedtheinformation.Onappealthecourtreversedbasedontheseprinciples:(1) presence  p  duringthetransactiondoesnotautomaticallyrequiredisclosure; (2) failureofthestatetocomplywithsuchanorder P  doesnotautomaticallyentitlethedefendanttodismissal; (3) @   "[t]heremustbeadeterminationastothenecessityfor 0  disclosure,governmentmisconduct,andprejudicetotheaccused;" (4) "inordertocompeldisclosure,adefendantmust  allegethespecificdefensesoughttobeproved,andmustsupportthedefensewithswornproof." Statev.Banks ,656So.  2d590(Fla.2dDCA1995). (#(#    `         2  C  .3  0 `  Statementofparticulars 2. p` (#` (#    2  D  .3  0 `  Richardsoninquiry . P` (#` (#    ` 2  1  .3    0  Whenisitrequired? 0 (# (#     `  2  a  .3  0  Thetrialjudgerefusedtoallowthestatetoaskthedefendantwhy ` shehadacocainepipeinherpursebecausethepipehadnotbeenlistedindiscovery.However,whenshetestifiedthatshewasnotfamilarwithcocaine,thecourtthenallowedthestatetoaskthatquestion.ThiswasdonewithoutaRichardsoninquiry.Onappeal   thecourtfoundthatthiswaserror.Becausethepipehadnotbeenlisted,itcouldnothavebeenintroducedintoevidence. "Permitting "  counseltocrossexamineappellantaboutthecocainepipehavingbeenfoundinherpurseallowedtheprosecutortoaccomplishindirectlywhattheprosecutorcouldnotaccomplishdirectly.ThereisnoexceptiontotheRichardsonrulefor p&!$ impeachment. Guerriev.State ,649So.2d928(Fla.4thDCA `'"% 1995). (#(#    `  2  b  .3  0  Duringthetrialthevictimofanaggravatedassaulttestifiedthat 0*%( afterthedefendanthadbeenarrestedandchargedheaskedthevictimtodropthechargesandtoldhim"'thattheywasn'tgoingto ,`'* findthegun;andhewasgoingtobeatthisrapanyway,likehedoinallothercases.'"Thedefenseattorneymadeageneralobjectiontothetestimony.Itwasagreedthatthiswouldbearguedoutofthepresenceofthejuryafterthevictimhadfinishedtestifying.Thedefenseattorneythenpointedouttothecourtthatthistestimonywasinviolationofthediscoveryruleinthatthedefendanthadnonoticethatthedefendanthadmadethesestatementstothevictim.Codefensecounselthenarguedtheimpactofthestatementasanimpermissiblecommentonthedefendant'spriorrecord.Thecourtdeniedamotionformistrial.Therewasnofurtherargumentorrulingontheallegeddiscoveryviolation.OnappealtheStatearguedthatthedefensehadwaivedanyRichardsonobjection.The P  courtdisagreed. "'Althoughadefendantmusttimelyobjectto @  theuseoftheundiscoveredevidencesothatitisbroughttotheattentionofthetrialcourt,nomagicwordsexisttotriggertherequirementthatthetrialcourtconductaRichardsonhearing.'"    Thecourtneedonlybeputonnoticeofaviolationandthere  neednotbeaspecificrequestforsuchahearing. Inthiscasethe  noticewassufficient. Searsv.State ,656So.2d595(Fla.1stDCA  1995). (#(#    `  2  c  .3    Seecasesondiscoverablematerial. `    `  2  d  .3  0  Seecasesbelowunder"Sanctions."@(#(#    ` 2  2  .3  0  Sufficiency .  p (# (#    `  2  a  .3  0  Thedefendantwasconvictedofmurderingacabdriver.Duringthe P trialthestatepresentedawitnesswhotestifiedthatthedefendanthadmadeastatementthathewasgoingtorobacab.Thedefenseobjectedtothistestimonyonthegroundsthatthestatementhadnotbeendisclosed.Thetrialjudgeconductedaprocedureandallowedthestatementintoevidence.ThedefendantarguedthattheRichardsonprocedureconductedbythetrialjudgewasinsufficient #! apparentlybecausethetrialjudgemadenofindingastoprejudice.OnappealtheCourtreviewedthepartsofaproperRichardson % # inquiry: "[T]hetrialjudgemustfirstdeterminewhethera p&!$ discoveryviolationoccurred.Ifaviolationisfound,thecourtmustassesswhethertheState'sdiscoveryviolationwasinadvertentorwillful,whethertheviolationwastrivialorsubstantial,andmostimportantly,whataffectithadonthedefendant'sabilitytopreparefortrial." Inthiscasethetrial  +p&) judgeconductedadetailedinquiryoftheprosecutor,thedefense ,`'* attorney,andthewitness,butthenconcluded "thattherewasno  basistoconcludethattherehadbeenawillfuldiscoveryviolation." Theinquirysupportedtheconclusionthatthewitness  hadnotrevealedtheinvolvedinformationtothestatepriortotestifying. "[W]efindtherecordhereshows,whenviewedasa p whole,thatthetrialcourtmadeanadequateinquiryandconcludedthattherewasnobasistofindawillfuldiscoveryviolationbytheState.WeagreewiththetrialcourtthatnoneoftherulesofcriminalprocedurerelatingtodiscoveryrequiretheStatetodiscloseinformationwhichisnotwithintheState'sactualorconstructivepossession.Fla.R.Crim.P.3.220(1)"  `   Sinclairv.State ,657So.2d1138(Fla.1995).P (#(#    ` 2  3  .3  0  Discoveryviolations .0  (# (#     `  2  a  .3  0  Duringthedirectexaminationofawitness,theprosecutorasked  whatconversationshehadwiththedefendant.Thedefensecounselobjected "becausethestatehadnotdisclosedtothedefenseany  statementthat[thedefendant]mayhavemadetothewitness."   ThetrialjudgerefusedtoconductaRichardsonhearing.Thestate  wasrequiredtodisclosethedefendant'sstatements. "Thefactthat p thewitnesswasonthestate'switnesslistand[thedefendant]failedtodeposehimdoesnotvitiatethestate'sdiscoveryviolation." Thecourtdidnotfindharmlesserrorinthiscase. @  Masonv.State ,654So.2d1225(Fla.2dDCA1995).0(#(#    ` 2  4  .3  0  Harmlesserror N. ` (# (#    `  2  a  .3  0  Despitesolidandlongstandingcommitmenttoaperseruleof @ reversalforfailuretoconductaRichardsoninquirywhereoneis 0 required,theFloridaSupremeCourthasnowruledthatharmlesserroranalysisappliestosucherrors. "Indeterminingwhethera ! Richardsonviolationisharmless,theappellatecourtmust "  considerwhetherthereisareasonablepossibilitythatthediscoveryviolationprocedurallyprejudicedthedefense.Asusedinthiscontext,thedefenseisprocedurallyprejudicedifthereisareasonablepossibilitythatthedefendant'strialpreparationorstrategywouldhavebeenmateriallydifferenthadtheviolationnotoccurred.Trialpreparationorstrategyshouldbeconsideredmateriallydifferentifitreasonablycouldhavebenefittedthedefendant.Inmakingthisdeterminationeveryconceivablecourseofactionmustbeconsidered.Ifthereviewingcourtfindsthatthereisareasonablepossibilitythat ,`'* thediscoveryviolationprejudicedthedefenseoriftherecordisinsufficienttodeterminethatthedefensewasnotmateriallyaffected,theerrormustbeconsideredharmful.Inotherwords,onlyiftheappellatecourtcansaybeyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefensewasnotprocedurallyprejudicedbythediscoveryviolationcantheerrorbeconsideredharmless." The `  courtstressed,however,theneedtofollowRichardsonprinciples. P  Inthisparticularcasethecourtagreedthattheerrorwasharmless.Considerthefactsofthecaseforguidance. Statev.Schopp ,653 0  So.2d1016(Fla.1995). (#(#    `  2  b  .3  0  Wherethestatefailedtoprovidethedefensewithnoticeof P  incriminatingstatementsthecourtcouldnotconclude "beyonda @  reasonabledoubtthatnoproceduralprejudiceresultedfromtheallegedfailureofthestatetodivulge"thestatements. The   opinionreiteratesthestandardssetforthinStatev.Schopp,653So.  2d1016(Fla.1995). Searsv.State ,656So.2d595(Fla.1stDCA  1995). (#(#    `    2  E  .3  0 `  BradyViolations&RelatedMatters . ` (#` (#      ` 2  1  .3  0 ForanexampleoftheapplicationofBradyprinciplestothesentencing ` phaseinacapitalcasesee Scottv.State ,657So.2d1129(Fla.1995).P (# (#   2  F  .3  0 `  Sanctions . 0` (#` (#     ` 2  1  .3  0  Dismissal . ` (# (#    ` 2  2  .3  0  Witnessexclusion d . @ (# (#    `  2  a  .3  0  Thedefensefailedtoprovidethenameoftwowitnessestothestate.   Thiswasasexualbatteryonachildcase.Attrialanexperttestifiedthatanexaminationindicatedthatapenishadbeenforcedintothevictim'svagina.Thevictimtestifiedthatshehadneverhadsexwithanyone.Thedefendantattemptedtocallapersonotherthedefendantandanotherperson,whowasfriendofthevictim,totestifythatthevictimhadengagedinsexualrelationswiththisotherperson.Thedefensehadnotadvisedthestateofeitherwitness.Thetrialjudgeexcludedbothwitnessesbecauseopeningstatementsanddirectexaminationhadbeencompletedandthetestimonywasextremelyimportant.Onappealthecourtreversedbecausereciprocalrulesofdiscoverycannotbeappliedinawaythatdeniesadefendantofhisfundamentalrighttodefendhimself.. "Sincethe ,`'* testimonysoughttobeintroducedbythewitnessesintheinstantcasewasexculpatoryinnature,exclusionofthetestimonywoulddenyappellanthisfundamentalrighttodefendanthimselfinviolationoftheSixthAmendment.""Whenexculpatoryevidenceissoughttobeintroducedinviolationofthediscoveryrules,andremedieswhichwouldallowthetrialtoproceedareinsufficient,thepropercourseofactionistodeclareamistrial.Amistrialisanappropriatediscoverysanctionunderrule3.220(n)(1)..." Mattearv.State ,657So.2d 0  46(Fla.4thDCA1995). (#(#    `  2  b  .3  0  Thedefendantwaschargedwithsaleofcocaine.Thedefendant P  attemptedtoputawitnessonthestandwhowouldtestifythatheoverheardaCItelltwopeoplethathisattempttocarryoutacontrolledbuyofcocainefromthedefendantfailedandthedefendantwasinnocent.Theprosecutionobjectedthattherehadbeenadiscoveryviolationinthatthestatewastoldofthewitnessonlyonedaybeforethetrial.Thedefensecounselstatedthathehadonlyrecentlybeeninformedofthewitness.Theprosecutoraskedthatthewitnessbeexcluded. "Thetrialjudge,expressingtheview  thatthestatewouldsufferundueprejudiceasaresultofthelatenoticeofthiswitnessandtheresultinglackofopportunitytoinvestigatetheveracityofhistestimony,orderedthetrialtoproceedwithoutthedefensewitnessbeingpermittedtotestify."  @ Onappealthecourtreversed. "Theseveresanctionofwitness 0 exclusionshouldbealastresortreservedonlyforthemostextremeorcompellingcircumstances,butparticularlywhentheexcludedtestimonyrelatestocriticalissuesorfactsandthetestimonyisnotcumulative." Thisextremesanctionshouldbe @ used "onlyafterthetrialcourthasconductedanadequate 0 inquirytodeterminewhetheranyotherreasonablealternativesmightbeusedtoovercomeormitigatepossibleprejudice." Even ! assumingthattherewasprejudicetothestate,thecourtstillerredbyexcludingthewitnessbyfailingtoconsiderotheralternativeslike arecessorcontinuancetogivethestateachanceto $" investigatethewitness. Donaldsonv.State ,656So.2d580(Fla. % # 1stDCA1995). (#(#     ` 2  3  .3  0  Continuances A. P(#& (# (#     ` 2  4  .3  0  Speedytrialdischarge .0*%( (# (#     `   ,`'*   2  G  .3  0 `  Depositions  .` (#` (#    `    2  II  .3  0   SPEEDYTRIAL .(#(#   2  A  .3  0 `  Whentimebeginstorun P. ` ` (#` (#    2  B  .3  0 `  Application . 0 ` (#` (#    ` 2  1  .3  0 Thedefendantwasgiventhefollowingtickets:twoforDUIwithserious `  injury,twoforDUIwithpropertydamageandonefordrivingwithasuspendedlicense.Thematterwassetfortrialincountycourt.Thecourtclerktransferredtheticketstocircuitcourt.SubsequentlythestatefiledaninformationincircuitcourtchargingthedefendantwithfelonyDUI,twocountsofDUIpropertydamageandonecounteachofDUIpersonaldamage,DUIimpairmentandDUIdrivingwithasuspendedlicense.Thespeedytrialperiodontheticketsexpired.Thedefendantfiledanoticeofexpirationofspeedytrialincountycourt.Thestatetooknoactionduringthewindowperiod.Twomonthslaterthestatenolleprossedthetickets. "Asamatteroflaw,defendantisforeverdischargedfromthecounty p courtcharges.Afterthespeedytrialperiodranonthemisdemeanorticketoffenses,defendantfiledappropriatemotionsfordischarge.Thestate'snolleprosequiwasanullitybecausethestatetooknoactionpursuanttoRule3.191(p)(3)afterthenoticeofexpirationofspeedytrialwasfiled." Thestatearguedthatthechargeswereconsolidatedwith  p thefelonycharges.Thecourtheldthatthiscouldonlybedonebycourtorder. Statev.Woodruff ,654So.2d585(Fla.3dDCA1995).P (# (#    2  C  .3  0 `  Demands ". 0` (#` (#     2  D  .3  0 `  Waiver,extensions,&tolling A#. " ` (#` (#    ` 2  1  .3  0 Inthiscasetrialwassetaftertherunningofspeedytrial.Onthedayof $" trialthedefendantfiledamotiontodismissondoublejeopardygroundsandamotiontodischarge.Thetrialjudgeheldaninformalconferencewithcounselandindicatedthatheviewedthefilingofthedoublejeopardymotionasawaiverofspeedytrial.Thestatemaintainedthatthepartiesagreedtoawaiverofspeedytrialatthisconference.Thejudgechosetosetthatmotionalongwithsimilarmotions.Thejudgethenresignedduetoillnesswithoutrulingonthedefendant'spendingmotions,includingthespeedytrialmotion.Speedytrialhadexpiredwhenanotherdefenseattorney ,`'* signedawrittenwaiveroftherighttospeedytrial.Subsequently,anotherjudgedeniedthemotiontodischarge.Thecircuitcourtdeniedapetitionforwritofprohibition.Onappealthecourtreversedbasedontheseprinciples:(1)underRule3.191(d)(2)awaivermustbe "inwriting,signedby  properpersonorcounsel,or'uponstipulationannouncedtothecourt;'" (2) "speedytrialtimeistolledduetohearingsonpretrial `  motionsonlybywrittenorrecordedorderofthecourt;"(3)"[m]eresilenceofthedefendantordefensecounselataproceedingwhereinthedefendant'strialdateissetbeyondthespeedytrialperiodisnotaneffectivewaiver;"(4)"[e]venanofftherecordagreementbydefensecounseltoatrialdatebeyondthespeedytrialperiodisnotavalidwaiver." Inthiscasetherewasnothingindicatingawaiver.Defense P  counselhadremainedsilentwhenthecasewassetfortrialbeyondthespeedytrialperiod.Furthermore,therewasnoreasonthatthedoublejeopardymotioncouldnothavebeenheardduring15daywindow.Thetrialjudgeindicatedadesiretoconsiderthedoublejeopardymotionalongwithsimilarmotions,but "delaysduetoreasonspersonaltothecourt  andcrowdeddocketsdonotexcusecompliancewiththespeedytrialrule." Underwoodv.Johnson ,651So.2d760(Fla.1stDCA1995). (# (#    ` 2  2  .3  0 Intheabovestyledcausetherewasaclaimthatspeedytrialwasextended p becausetheoriginaljudgewasill,butthisoccurredafterthespeedytrialperiodhadexpired. Anextensionisonlyeffectiveifitisenteredby P writtenorrecordedorderpriortotheexpirationoftheperiod. Inthis @ casetherewasnowrittenorrecordedorderbeforethespeedytrialperiodexpired. Theorderreflectingextenuatingcircumstancesoccurredafter  p theexpirationoftheperiod. Underwoodv.Johnson ,651So.2d760 ` (Fla.1stDCA1995).  (# (#    2  E  .3  0 `  Availability /. 0` (#` (#    ` 2  1  .3  0 Onthedayoftrialthestateobjectedthatthedefendanthadnorighttoa ! jurytrial.Thetrialjudgeresetthetrialonthelastdayofthespeedytrialwindowsohecouldconsiderthestate'sobjection.Thetrialjudgewasawareofthefactthattheassistantpublicdefenderhadanothertrialinwhichspeedytrialwasabouttoexpireandwhichhadbeengivenprioritybyorderofthechiefjudge.Thedefendanthadbeencontinuouslyavailable.Thedefenseattorneyhaddoneeverythingreasonabletogetthecasetotrial.Speedytrialconsiderationsbarredtrial. "Thiscourt'sdecisionin P(#& Obanionv.State,496So.2d977(Fla.3dDCA1986),reviewdenied, @)$' 504So.2d768(Fla.1987)prohibitsanindigent'sspeedytrialrightfrombeingcircumventedbyschedulingthetrialofaseriesofindigentdefendantsforthesamedate." Statev.Alvarez ,651So.2d1231(Fla. ,`'* 3dDCA1995).  (# (#   2  F  .3  0 `  MotionsforDischarge 5.  ` (#` (#    ` 2  1  .3  0  Generally 5. p (# (#     ` 2  2  .3  0  Prose 6. P  (# (#     ` 2  3  .3  0  Discoveryviolation 37. 0  (# (#    2  G  .3  0 `  Constitutionalrighttospeedytrial 7. ` ` (#` (#    ` 2  1  .3  0 InAugust1991thedefendantwaschargedwiththecommissionoffelonies @  occurringinMay1989.InJanuary1992,thedefendantfiledamotiontodismissforpreaccusationdelay.Hearguedthatbecausetheinvestigationwascompletein1989,thedelayinfilingthechargesagainsthimviolatedhisdueprocessrights,providedatacticaladvantagetothestate,andcausedprejudicebecausehecouldnotexamineasemensampletakenfromthevictimtorebutpositiveDNAevidencebecauseithaddegraded.Thestateexplainedthatthedelayresultedfromadministrativeproblemsinvolvingahopetodisposeofthecasethroughanegotiatedplea,achangeofprosecutorsandotherproblems.Thetrialjudgegrantedthemotiontodismiss.Onappealthecourtreversed. "'[I]nevaluatinganasserteddue P processviolationbasedonpreindictmentdelay,[thecourtmust]...considerboththereasonsforthedelayandtheprejudicetotheaccused.Further,theaccusedbearstheburdenofprovingtheprejudiceand,ifthethresholdrequirementofproofofactualprejudiceisnotmet,theinquiryendsthere.Onceactualprejudiceisshown,itisnecessarytoengageinasensitivebalancingofthegovernment'sneedforaninvestigativedelay...againsttheprejudiceassertedbythedefendant.'" Inthiscasethedefendantfailedtoidentifywhatbenefithe   hopedtosecurefromfurthertesting.Hefailedtoallegethatthetestingwouldhaveproducedfavorableresults.Healsofailedtoshowthatthesemensamplewouldhavebeenavailablehadhebeenchargedanyearlier. #!  Evenwherethedelayresultsfromadministrativeoversight,the $" defendantmustshowthatthedelaycausedactualprejudicebeforethestateisrequiredtoexplainorjustifythedelay.Heretherewasnoevidencethatthedelaywasintentionallycausedbythestatetogetatacticaladvantage.Thestatehasnodutytochargethedefendantonceprobablecausehasbeenestablished. Statev.Grady ,657So.2d1254 @)$' (Fla.2dDCA1995).  (# (#   ,`'*  2  III  .3  0   SEARCHANDSEIZURE A.(#(#   2  A  .3  0 `  Generalprinciples :B.` (#` (#    ` 2  1  .3  0 "Allsearchesmustbeauthorizedbyavalidsearchwarrant...orfall p withincertainlimitedexceptions....Thoseexceptionsareconsent,lawfularrest,hotpursuit,stopandfriskandprobablecausewithexigentcircumstances." "The'plainview'doctrine hasfrequentlybeen @  consideredanexceptiontothewarrantrequirement.Inreality,materialsthatareseizedbecausetheyareinplainviewofanofficerwhoobservesfromalocationwherehehasalegalrighttobearenotsubjectto[a]FourthAmendment[analysis]...." Pottsv.Johnson ,654 P  So.2d596(Fla.3dDCA1995).  (# (#    `   2  B  .3  0 `  Thresholdissuesandproceduralconsiderations F. ` (#` (#     ` 2  1  .3  0  Sufficiencyanduseofthemotionandprocedure F. (# (#     `  2  a  .3  0  Wherethejuryisswornandthecourtthenhearsamotionto  suppressanderroneouslygrantsit,trialonremandisbarred.    Statev.Kennon ,652So.2d396(Fla.2dDCA1995).p(#(#    `  2  b  .3  0  Amotiontosuppressfiled fivedaysbeforetrial wastimelyunder P rule3.190(h)(4)anditwaserrortodenyitwithoutanevidentiaryhearing. Martinv.State ,654So.2d978(Fla.1stDCA1995).0(#(#    `  2  c  .3  0  UndertheFloridaConstitution,FloridaCourtsareobligatedto ` followdecisionsoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinresolvingsearchandseizureissues. "PolicystatementsfromtheUnited @ StatesSupremeCourtwillserveasapolestarinchoosingamongcompetingandunreconciledviewsofFourthAmendmentissues." Statev.Daniel ,20Fla.L.WeeklyS497(Fla.Opinion ! filedSept.28,1995). (#(#    ` 2  2  .3  0  Credibility  M. $" (# (#    `  2  a  .3  0  "Asageneralrule,anyconflict...isforthefinderoffactto p&!$ resolvewheretherecordcontainscompetentsubstantialevidenceastoboththeState'sandthedefense'stheories. Ontheotherhand, P(#& arecordcontaininguncontrovertedandbelievableevidencesupportingonlyasingletheorymeansthetrialcourtmustacceptthattheoryasfact,evenifthetheoryisbasedentirelyonthearrestingofficer'stestimony.Statev.Carter,563So.2d728, ,`'* 728(Fla.3dDCA1990). Anyotherrulingisplainerror. Statev.  Daniel ,20Fla.L.WeeklyS497(Fla.OpinionfiledSept.28,  1995). (#(#    `      ` 2  3  .3  0  Remedy HQ. p (# (#     ` 2  4  .3  0  Subjectsofsuppression Q. P  (# (#    `  2  a  .3  0  Theactualidentityofadefendantisnotsubjecttosuppression 0  evenifitismadeasaresultofanunlawfulpolicestop. These  p  casesinvolvesuspendeddriver'slicensechargesarisingfromvehiclestops.Thecourtreliesonimmigrationdecisionssetforthintheopinion.Thecourtalsospecificallyrejectsthesuggestionthatthisissueiscontrolledbythebodyoflawdealingwithimpermissiblelysuggestiveidentificationprocedures. O'Nealv.   State ,649So.2d311(Fla.3dDCA1995).(#(#    `     ` 2  5  .3  0  Governmentagents U. (# (#     ` 2  6  .3  0  Expectationofprivacy,propertyinterest&standing ]V.  (# (#    `  2  a  .3  0  "'UnderFloridalawitisclearthatonedoesnotharboran ` expectationofprivacyonafrontporchwhereasalesmanorvisitormayappearatanytime.'...Therighttoapproachafrontdoorthough,istemperedbythegeneralrulethatthecurtilagesurroundingahomeisentitledtothesameprotectionsasthehome." Pottsv.Johnson ,654So.2d596(Fla.3dDCA ` 1995). (#(#    `  2  b  .3  0  "Aperson'sbackyard...fallswithina'zoneclothedbya 0 reasonableexpectationofprivacyintowhichthegovernmentcouldnotreasonablyintrudetoconductasearch.'... 'Typically,theyard ! adjacenttoaresidentialdwelling,particularlythepartofthebackyardblockedfromviewfromthestreetbythedwelling,isclothedwithareasonableexpectationofprivacyfromunreasonablegovernmentalintrusion.'"  Pottsv.Johnson ,654 % # So.2d596(Fla.3dDCA1995). (#(#    `  2  c  .3  0  Thereisareasonableexpectationofprivacyin apublicrestroom P(#& stallatafarmer'smarket. Ramirezv.State ,654So.2d1222 @)$' (Fla.2dDCA1995). (#(#    `  2  d  .3  0  Astallinapublicrestroomatafarmer'smarketisnotlikeonein ,`'* aprobationandrestitutioncenter.Inthelatterfacilityaninmatedoes "nothavethesameexpectationofprivacyinsidealocked  toiletstallasanonincarceratedpersonbecauseconfinementataprobationcentercarrieswithitthecircumscriptionofcertainprivacyrightsforinstitutionalsafetyandsecurityreasons."  p  Ramirezv.State ,654So.2d1222(Fla.2dDCA1995).` (#(#    `  2  e  .3  0  TheFourthAmendmentextendstothecontentsofpackagesthatare @  beingshipped,includingpackagesinthepossessionof Federal 0  Express. "'Lettersandsealedpackagesofthiskindinthemail  p  arefullyguardedfromexaminationandinspection,exceptastotheiroutwardformandweight,asiftheywereretainedbythepartiesforwardingthemintheirowndomiciles.Theconstitutionalguarantyoftherightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpapersagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresextendstotheirpapers,thusclosedagainstinspection,wherevertheymaybe.Whilstinthemail,theycanonlybeopenedandexaminedunderlikewarrant,issueduponsimilaroathoraffirmation,particularlydescribingthethingtobeseized,asisrequiredwhenpapersaresubjectedtosearchinone'sownhousehold.'"[quotingfromExParteJackson,96U.S.727,6 p Otto727,24L.Ed.877(1877).] Anofficermayseizeapackage `  ifheorshehasprobablecausetobelievethatitcontains P contrabandandexigentcircumstancesorsomeotherexceptiontothewarrantrequirementispresent. Theofficermayholdthe 0 packageandsecureasearchwarrant.Inthiscaseatrainedcaninealertedonapackage.Thecourtheldthatthisdidnoteliminatetherequirementthatawarrantbesecuredintheabsenceofexigentcircumstancesbeforesearchofthecontainer.Thisisdifferentfromasearchofanautomobile.The automobileexceptiontothe 0 warrantrequirementestablishedinCarrollv.UnitedStates,267   U.S.132,45S.Ct.280,69L.Ed.543(1925),permitssearchandseizureofamotorvehicleanditscontentswithoutawarrantifthereisprobablecausetobelievethatitcontainscontraband.  #! Analertbyatrainedcanineprovidesthisprobablecause.Thesamerulesdonotapplytoapackageunlessthepackageisinsideofamotorvehiclewhichisbeinglawfullysearched.Thenittoomaybesearched. Danielsv.Cochran ,654So.2d609(Fla.4thDCA `'"% 1995). (#(#    `     ` 2  7  .3  0  Detention,Search&Seizure i.  0*%( (# (#     `  2  a  .3  0  Seecasesbelowonconsensualencounter.,`'*(#(#    `     `  2  b  .3  0  Openingthecruiserdoorsothatthedefendant'sbicyclewould  hititcausingthedefendanttofall,constitutedaseizureoftheperson. Itwasnotnecessaryfortheofficertotouchthedefendant  withhishands. Clarkv.State ,648So.2d848(Fla.4thDCA p 1995). (#(#     `  2  c  .3  0  Thedefendant'svehiclewaslawfullystopped.Therewasreasonto @  believethattheremightbeaguninthecar.Oneofficerbegantalkingtothedefendantandsawthatthedefendantwaswearingahipbag.Itwasbulgingandappearedtobeveryheavy.Underthecircumstancestheofficerthoughtthatthedefendantmighthaveanotherweaponinthisbag,whichwasclosetothedefendant'shand. Theofficerthenaskedthedefendantifhehadany 0  weaponsinthebag.Thedefendantinquiredwhethertheofficerswerejustlookingforweapons.Theofficerresponded:"Why,doyougotdrugsinthere?"Thedefendantsaidyesandopenedthebagtorevealthemarijuana. Theofficerthenseized  thebagcontainingdrugsandparaphernalia. Theinquiry  concerningthecontentsofthebagwasnotasearch. Statev.  Bernard ,650So.2d100(Fla.2dDCA1995).p(#(#    `  2  d  .3  0  Officersrentedvideotapesandcopiedthemandreturnedthetapes P tothebusiness.Therewasnoindependentexaminationofthetapesbyajudge.Thedefendantwaschargedwithdistributionofobscenematerialsbasedonthetapes.Amotiontosuppressthetapeswasgranted.Acircuitcourtreversedthecountycourtonthegroundsthattherehadnotbeenanillegalsearchorseizurebecausetheownerhadvoluntarilyturnedthetapesoverwhenherentedthemandtheofficersreturnedtheminatimelyfashion.OnappealtheDistrictCourtreversedtheCircuitCourt. "Weholdthatthe   officer'sactofcopyingtherentedvideotapesconstitutesaseizureof[theowner's]property.Whileitistruethatlawenforcementofficersareallowedtokeepasinglecopyofavideotapeormovieforpurposesofpreservingtheevidence;seeState $" v.Johnson,605So.2d545,548(Fla.2dDCA1992),thelawful % # retentionisdependentupontheissuanceofawarrantfortheseizureoftheitempriortotheofficersobtainingit.Onlywhenawarranthasbeenissuedistheretentionnotapriorrestraint....Thecopyingofthemovieontoablankcassetteforthepurposeofpursuingaprosecutionfordistributionofobscenematerialswithoutthedeterminationthatthemovieisobsceneisanillegalseizureevenwhentheoriginalcassetteis ,`'* returnedtothestoreownerduringtherentalperiod." Miragaya  v.State ,654So.2d262(Fla.2dDCA1995).(#(#    `  2  e  .3  0  Therewasaseizureofthedefendantwhere"apoliceofficerpulled  upbehind[thedefendant],approachedhisvehicle,andorderedhimtoturnoffhismotorandgivehimhisdriver'slicense." Taylorv. `  State ,658So.2d173(Fla.5thDCA1995).P (#(#    `  2  f  .3  0  Thedefendantwaswalkinginahighdrugresidentialareaatabout 0  2:00p.m.Adeputysawhimandreportedthatthedefendantlookednervouslyatthepolicecar,crossedthestreet,andcontinuedtowalkwhilelookingbackatthecar.Forthesereasonsthedeputydecidedtoapproachthedefendant.Hethenadvisedanotherdeputythatthedefendantshouldbeapproached.Eachdeputyapproachedthedefendantatthesametimeandstoppedwithinaboutthreefeetofthedefendant.Onedeputyaskedthedefendanthisnameandthedefendantresponded.Theotherdeputynoticedthatthedefendantwashidinghisrighthandbehindhisbackandhadablackobjectinhishand.Hesaidthathebelievedthedefendantmightbeholdingagun.Atthatpointoneofthedeputiesaskedthedefendantwhatwasinhisrighthand.Thedefendantsaid"[N]o"andpulledhishandback.Thedeputythengrabbedthedefendant'shandtoseewhatwasinit.Hesawashirtinthedefendant'shand.Atuggingmatchbetweenthedeputyandthedefendantthentookplace,resultingincrackcocainefallingfromtheshirt.Thetrialjudgeheldthattheinitialcontactwasaconsensualencounterwhichturnedintoavalidstopwhentheofficersbegantofearfortheirsafety.Onappealthecourtruledthat oncetheofficersgrabbedthe P defendant'shandtheencounterbecameastop. Evenifitthe @ officerhadareasonablebelief thatthedefendantwasarmed,any 0 alarmwasdispelledoncethedeputysawthatthedefendantwasholdingashirtratherthanaweapon.Thus,thedeputywasnotauthorizedtopullthedefendant'sshirtfromhishand. Thiswas "  particularlytruesincetherewasnoevidencethatweaponsareusuallyhiddeninthismanner. Stephensv.State ,656So.2d531 $" (Fla.2dDCA1995). (#(#    `  2  g  .3  0  Asaresultofaradiodispatchadeputymadecontactwiththe `'"% defendant.Drugswereultimatelydiscovered.Amotiontosuppresswasdenied.Theofficeridentifiedhimselfasapoliceofficerinaloudvoicewhileheilluminatedthedefendant'sfacewithaflashlight.Thedefendantstoppedandthedeputythenmotionedforhimtocomeforward.Severalotherthingshappenedthatarenot ,`'* keytothedecision.Thecontactwiththedefendantultimatelyresultedinthediscoveryofdrugs.Thestatearguedthattheinitialcontactwasaconsensualencounter.Onappealthecourtrejectedthiscontention. "Atthethresholdoftheresidence,[thedeputy]  shinedhisflashlightin[thedefendant's]face,statedinaloudvoice,"CollierCountySheriff'sOffice,"andmotionedfor[thedefendant]tocometowardhim.Webelievethoseactionswere'ashowofofficialauthoritysuchthat"areasonablepersonwouldhavebelievedhewasnotfreetoleave."'" Statev. 0  Hughes,562So.2d795,797(Fla.1stDCA1990),quoting  p  Jacobsonv.State,476So.2d1282,1285(Fla.1985).InUnited `  Statesv.Mendenhall,446U.S.544,100S.Ct.1870,64L.Ed.2d P  497(1980),theSupremeCourtlisted 'useoflanguageortoneof @  voiceindicatingthatcompliancewiththeofficer'srequestmightbecompelled'asanexampleofacircumstancethatmightindicateaseizure. Id.446U.S.at554,100S.Ct.at1877. Chase  v.State ,656So.2d588(Fla.2dDCA1995).(#(#    2  C  .3  0 `  Warrants .` (#` (#     ` 2  1  .3  0  Sufficiencyoftheaffidavit .p (# (#     `  2  a  .3  0  Thecourtfoundtheaffidavitsufficienteventhoughitwasbasedon P hearsay.Thecircumstancessupportedtheconclusionthattheinformationwasreliable.Theinformantwasnamedintheaffidavitandthedefendantwhowasthesubjectoftheprosecutionwasactuallybabysittingforherchildwhenmuchoftheinformationintheaffidavitwasdeveloped. "Thisisnotacaseinvolvinga P confidentialgovernmentinformantorananonymoustip." See @ theopinionfordetails. Statev.Guertin ,650So.2d1041(Fla.4th 0 DCA1995). (#(#    `  2  b  .3  0  Thedefensearguedthattheaffidavitwasinsufficientbecause:(1) "  itdidnotallegefactsshowingthereliabilityoftheconfidentialinformantand(2)theaffiantdidnotobservetheCIfromthetimetheCIlefttheaffiantandwentintothehouseandfromthetimetheCIleftthehouseandcamebacktotheaffiant.Thetrialjudgedeniedamotiontosuppress.Onappealthecourtstatedthat the `'"% reliabilityoftheconfidentialinformantcanbeestablishedbyacontrolbuy. Thatwasthecasehere,wheretheCImadetwo @)$' controlledbuys.Theaffiant/officersearchedtheCIbeforethecontrolledbuytomakesuretheCIhadnodrugsandsearchedtheCIagainwhentheCIreturnedtomakesurethattheCIdidnothave ,`'* themoneythatwastosupposedtobeusedtopurchasedrugs.TheCIwaspersonallysupervisedandconstantlymonitoredbytheaffiant/officer.TheaffiantdidnothavetheCIinsightallthetimewhentheCIwasoutsideofthehouse,butwhentheaffiantdidn'thavetheCIinsight,anotherofficerdid.While,itwouldhavebeenbetteriftheaffianthadputhispartner'sobservationsintotheaffidavit,itwasnotfatal. Malonev.State ,651So.2d733(Fla. P  5thDCA1995). (#(#    `  2  c  .3  0  Theaffidavitestablishedprobablecausethatthere"willbecocaine"  p  intheinvolvedpremisesatadateinthefuture.933.18(5) "requiresasearchwarrantofaprivatedwellingforviolationof P  thelawrelatingtonarcoticsordrugabusenotbeissuedunlessuponaffidavitshowingprobablecausethatthelawisbeingviolatedtherein." Inthiscase "[i]fthewords'ispresently'had   beenusedinsteadofthewords'willbe',theaffidavitlikelywouldhavepassedmuster." Pazosv.State ,654So.2d1000  (Fla.4thDCA1995). (#(#     ` 2  2  .3  0  Sufficiencyofwarrant 3. (# (#     ` 2  3  .3  0  Executionofwarrant .` (# (#    `  2  a  .3  0   KnockandAnnounce . @(#(#    `    2(  1  )3  0 h Seecasesbelowunderarrest"KnockandAnnounce." ph(#h(#    `  2  b  .3  0   Areaandpersonstobesearched G. P(#(#     `  2  c  .3  0   Roleofofficers .0(#(#     ` 2  4  .3  0  Searchofahome Ӛ.! (# (#    2  D  .3  0 `  Exceptionstowarrantrequirement  .#!` (#` (#    ` 2  1  .3  0 Theburdenisonthestatetoshowthevalidityofthewarrantlessseizure. % #  Powellv.State ,649So.2d888(Fla.2dDCA1995).p&!$ (# (#    ` 2  2  .3  0  Consensualencounters k.P(#& (# (#     `  2  a  .3  0  Seecasesaboveondetention.0*%((#(#    `  2  b  .3  0  Aconsensualencounterwastransformedintoadetentionwhen ,`'* theofficerdecidedtoconductapatdown.Sholtzv.State ,649  So.2d283(Fla.2dDCA1995). (#(#    `  2  c  .3  0  Thiscaseinvolvedtheissueofwhetherevidencewassecuredasa  resultofaconsensualpolicecitizenencounter.Therewasadisputeinthetestimonyandthetrialjudgeacceptedthedeputy'stestimonyoverthedefendant.Thecourtmustacceptthatonappeal.Thedeputywasonpatrolwhenheencounteredthedefendant,whowasonabicycle.Thedeputycalledouttothedefendantandaskediftheycouldtalk.Thedefendantstoppedhisbicycleandagreedtotalk.Thedeputyaskedthedefendantifhehadanyweapons.Thedefendantsaidthathedidnot.Thedeputythenaskedwhetherhecouldsearchthedefendantandthedefendantreplied:"Yeah.Iain'tgotnothing."Thedeputyhadnoprobablecausetobelievethedefendanthadcommittedacrime.Thedeputysaidthatifthedefendanthadnotconsentedtothesearch,hewouldhavelethimgo.Thedeputydidnottellthedefendantthathecouldleave.Afterconsentthedeputypatteddownthedefendant'sclothing,buthedidnotreachintohispocket.Accordingtothedeputy,thedefendantinterruptedthesearchbyplacinghislefthandintohisleftpant'spocket,whilesayingallhehadwasmoney.Whenthedefendanttookhishandoutofhisleftpocket,heremovedmoneyandarockofcocaine.Accordingtothedeputy,hedidnottellthedefendanttoemptyhispocket.Thedefendantsaidhestoppedonlybecausethedeputytoldhimto,butheadmittedthatthedeputydidnotshowanyforce,pullagunorabadge,orderhimtostop,orhandcuffhim.Acceptingthetrialjudge'sviewofthefacts,onappealthecourtaffirmed. Jonesv.State ,658So.2d178(Fla.1stDCA P 1995). (#(#    `  2  d  .3  0  "Apoliceofficer'srequestthatapersonstopisnot,byitself,   deemedtocarrywithitsuchcoercionaswouldrenderanotherwisevoluntaryencounterwiththepoliceinvoluntary.Theappropriateinquiryiswhethertheencountercarrieswithitspecificcircumstanceswhichwouldindicatetoareasonablepersonthathewasunderrestraintforbiddinghimtoleave.Statev.Davis,543So.2d375,37677(Fla.3dDCA1989).Even p&!$ thoughappellantmightnothavefeltfreetoleave,thatisnottheappropriatetestthecorrecttestiswhetherareasonablepersonwouldhavebelievedhewasnotfreetoleave.Statev. @)$' Daniels,576So.2d819,822(Fla.4thDCA1991).[Thedeputy] 0*%( wasnotrequiredtotell[thedefendant]thathehadarighttorefusetherequesttosearch.Statev.Diaz,549So.2d759,760 ,`'* 61(Fla.3dDCA1989),rev.denied,560So.2d232(Fla.1990).  Inthiscase,competentandsubstantialevidencesupportsthetrialcourt'sfindingthatnoindiciaofcoercionarepresent.[Thedeputy]didnotdisplayabadge,pullagun,order[thedefendant]tostop,orhandcuffhim.Thereisnoindicationthatheuselanguageoratoneofvoiceindicatingthatcompliancewouldbecompelled,noristhereanyindicationthattheencounterbecamethreateninginanymanner." Thecourt @  distinguishedthedecisioninSholtzv.State,649So.2d283(Fla. 0  2dDCA1995),wherethecourtfoundthatthesearchwasnotconsensual.Inthatcasethedeputy "informed" thedefendantthat `  hewantedtodoapatdown,whereas,inthiscasethedeputy requestedandgotpermissiontosearch. Furthermore,inSholtz @  theofficerretrievedthecontrabandfromthedefendant'spocket;whereas,inthiscase thedefendantretrievedthecontraband   fromhisownpocket. Jonesv.State ,658So.2d178(Fla.1st  DCA1995). (#(#     ` 2  3  .3  0  Schoolsandstudents .. (# (#     `  2  a  .3  0  Throughananonymoustip,aschoolsecurityemployeelearnedthat p astudentinphysedclasshadabulgeinhispantsandwasbelievedtohaveagun.Thetipgaveadescriptionoftheclothingthestudentwaswearing.Theemployeewenttothegymandtoldthestudenttostepoutside.Atthispointthestudentwasnotfreetogo.Theemployeedidnotnoticeabulge.Theemployeeaskedthestudentifhecouldsearchhim,butthestudentdidnotrespond.Astheyenteredthelockerroomagundroppedoutofthestudent'spants.Theemployeewasnotactingonarequestfromlawenforcementofficers.Thetrialjudgedeniedamotiontosuppressthegun.Onappealthecourtaffirmed. "Whenlawenforcementisnotinvolved   'thelegalityofasearchofastudentshoulddependsimplyonthereasonableness,underallthecircumstances,ofthesearch.'"  "  Giventheinformationtheemployeehadand "[w]hentakinginto #! considerationthattherewereapproximately150studentsinthegymandthatitwaspossiblethat[thestudent]wascarryingafirearm" heactedreasonablyinstoppingthestudentforabrief p&!$ investigation. S.D.v.State ,650So.2d198(Fla.3dDCA1995).`'"%(#(#    ` 2  4  .3  0  Investigatorystops .@)$' (# (#     `  2  a  .3  0   Generalprinciples O.  +p&)(#(#  ,`'*     `  2  b  .3  0   Specifickindsofinformationandobservations *.(#(#     `    2(  1  )3  0 h  Highcrimeareaorcontactwithcriminal . h(#h(#    `     h 2(  a  )3  0  Defendant stoppedvehicleneartrailerwhere p drugsweresold +passengerenteredtrailer+ `  passengerreturnedtovehicleinafewminutes. No P  reasonablesuspicion. Powellv.State ,649So.2d @  888(Fla.2dDCA1995). (#(#     `     h 2(  b  )3  0  Officersobservedthedefendantapproachaman `  andhandhimmoneyinexchangeforasubstancethattheofficersbelievedmightbedrugs.Giventhetotalityofthecircumstancestheofficershadafoundedsuspiciontomakeaninvestigatorystop.Ramirezv.State ,654So.2d1222(Fla.2d  DCA1995). (#(#    `     h 2(  c  )3  0  Officerswerewatchingahouseatalocationwhere  thepolice hadmadethirtyorfortyarrests.A  dealer  ,whoworkedthatlocation,waspersonally p knowntooneoftheofficers. Atabout10:45p.m. ` anofficersawthedefendantpullupinacar.Theknowndealercameoutofthehouse,andtheofficerwhoknewthedealer,sawthedefendantandthedealerengageina"handtohand"transaction. The  p officerdidnotseeanymoneyordrugsexchangehands. Theobservingofficerradioedtootherswho P stoppedthecarinwhichthedefendantwaslocatedandfoundcocaine.Thetrialjudgedeniedamotiontosuppress.Onappealthecourtfoundthattheofficershadreasonablesuspiciontostopthedefendanteventhoughnoofficersawanymoneyordrugsbeforethestop. Althoughthecourtis #! reluctanttopermitastopwherethereisnotobservationofmoneyordrugs,otherfactorsjustifyingthestopinthiscase."Ofsignificancearetheofficer'snarcoticsexperience;thereputationofthelocationfordriveuptransaction;theextendedperiodofsurveillance;andthehistoryofpreviousmultiplearrestsfromthatsite.Inthiscase,allofthesefactors,togetherwiththenatureoftheexchangebetweenBurnette ,`'* andaknowndealergaverisetoareasonablesuspicioninOfficerGriffisthat[thedefendant]hadengagedinillegalactivity." Nevertheless,the  causewasremandedforfurtherproceedingsbecausetherewasnoevidenceastoanyadditionalfactorswhichwouldhavebeensufficienttocreateprobablecauseforthesearchofthecar. Burnettev.State , P  658So.2d1170(Fla.2dDCA1995). (#(#    `     h 2(  d  )3  0  Onappealthecourtfoundthattheofficerhada  p  foundedsuspicionofcriminalactivityjustifyinganinvestigatorystopbasedonthefollowingfacts:(1)officerswereconductingsurveillanceofacertainhouse;(2)itwasinanareaknownfordrugactivity;(3)oneoftheofficershadtheplaceundersurveillancethreetimesaweekforamonth;(4)duringthistimecarswouldcomeuptothehouse,eitheralongthestreetorinthedriveway;(5)blackmaleswouldcomeoutandapproachthedriversorthedriverswouldgetoutofthevehicle;(6)itemswouldbehandedbackandforthandthenthevehiclewouldleave;(7)threeorfourarrestsweremadeafterseeingthesethingsandthearresteeswerefoundwithcocaineintheirpossession;(8)onthenightinquestiononeoftheofficerssawaredFordescortpullintothedriveway;(9)severalblackmalescameoutofthehouseandapproachedthecar;(10)thedefendantgotoutofthefrontpassengersideofthecarandwalkedtowardthefrontofthecar;(11)thedefendantandoneoftheblackmaleswereengagedinconversation;(12)theblackmalecuppedhishandandhelditouttothedefendant;(13)thedefendantlookeddownintothehandandthenbeganreachingintohisfrontrightpocket;(14)boththedefendantandtheotherpersonwalkedclosertothehouseandbehindanothercarparkedinthedriveway;(15)afterbeingbehindthecarforafewseconds,thedefendantturnedaroundandquicklywalkedbacktohiscar;(16)thecarthenbackedoutanddroveaway.Theofficerssawnomoneyordrugsexchanged. Saadiv.State ,658So.2d112(Fla.2d 0*%( DCA1995). (#(#  ,`'*    `     h 2(  e  )3  0  Anofficerfirstsawthedefendant,ayoungblack  male,at8:30p.m.inavehicleintheareaofamotelthatofficershadundersurveillanceforsuspecteddrugactivity.Anofficerdeterminedthattheownerofthevehiclewasawhitefemaleinher40's.Theofficersawthedefendantabout30minuteslaterandattemptedtomakeatrafficstop.Beforethestopwasmadetheofficersawthedefendantmakeanabruptleftturnintothemotelwithoutgivingapropersignal.Whenthestopwasmade,theofficerfoundthatthedefendantwasdrivingwithasuspendedlicenseandarrestedhim.Asearchofthevehicleincidenttothearrestrevealedcocaine.Thetrialcourtdeniedamotiontosuppress.Whentheofficerwasaskedifhestoppedthedefendantbecauseofthetrafficinfractionorhadhealreadymadeuphismindtostopthedefendantbeforetheinfraction,theofficerrespondedthathestoppedthedefendantbecauseof"'[a]combinationofevents.The,um,suspectedconfirmeddrugactivity;thefactthat,um,hecameoutofthatarea;hewasdrivingacarthatwasnotregisteredtohim.'"Onappealthecourtreversed. "Merepresenceinahighcrimeareais P notsufficienttoprovidethefoundedsuspicionofprior,present,orimminentcriminalactivitynecessarytosupportastop.Mosleyv.State,519  p So.2d58(Fla.2dDCA1988).Particularlyinsufficientandabhorrentasapurportedbasisforfoundedsuspicionisthebarefactofayoungblackmaledrivingavehicleregisteredtoawhitefemaleolderthanhe." McCrayv.State ,657So.   2d1(Fla.2dDCA1995). (#(#    `    2(  2  )3  0 h  Tips,informants,andBOLOS R. #!h(#h(#    `     h 2(  a  )3  0  Ajuveniletoldanofficerthatawomanpassengerin % # acarparkednearbyhadaskedhimforcrackcocaine.Theofficerhadnopriordealingswiththejuvenile.Whentheofficerapproachedthecarhefounditexactlyasthejuvenilehaddescribedit.Thereweretwofemalesinthecar.Whentheofficeraskedthedriverforherlicense.Henoticedthatthedefendant,whowasoneofthewomen,closedher ,`'* legstogetherasiftohidesomething.Theofficerdidnotbelievethatthedefendanthadaweapon,butheaskedhertoexitthevehi