FLOOD v. STATE (2023)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Lawrence Donnell FLOOD, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D22-49

Decided: August 23, 2023

Rachael E. Reese of O'Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A., Tampa, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Lawrence Flood appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury found him guilty of robbery and aggravated battery. He argues the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his statements made after his arrest. His arrest, he argues, was accomplished through the warrantless tracking of a cell phone—a cell phone he obtained using a fictitious name.

We agree with Flood's argument that the police should have obtained a search warrant for Flood's cell phone location. Nevertheless, the discovery of Flood's precise location was inevitable. See Rodriguez v. State, 187 So. 3d 841, 846 (Fla. 2015) (discussing the inevitable discovery doctrine). As the result of a controlled call, the police knew Flood was in Orlando at a theme park. When the police went to Orlando to arrest Flood, they did so with an arrest warrant. So we affirm the circuit court's denial of Flood's motion to suppress.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Warner, Damoorgian and Kuntz, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network