Case ID: so2d_419/html/0336-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Sherman NEALY, Respondent.
    No. 60980.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Sept. 2, 1982.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.
    Michael H. Tarkoff of Flynn, Rubio & Tarkoff, Miami, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We exercise our discretionary jurisdiction to review the decision below, Nealy v. State, 400 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), because of direct conflict with decisions of other district courts of appeal.

We hold that the exclusionary rule embodied in article I, section 12, Florida Constitution, is applicable in probation revocation proceedings. State v. Dodd, 419 So.2d 333, (Fla.1982); Grubbs v. State, 373 So.2d 905 (Fla.1979).

We therefore approve the decision of the district court of appeal.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, A. C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, SUNDBERG and McDONALD, JJ., concur.