Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): challenged on appeal by the State. Upon entering the room, the officer saw the drugs on the table. Only after Bridges placed appellant under arrest did appellant pick up the two baggies of cocaine and throw them out of the room. Under these facts, Hodari and Perez have no application. All the contraband discovered by the officer was the direct fruit of the initial illegal entry. That Dempsey then picked up the drugs and attempted to throw them out of the room did not amount to an abandonment and most certainly did not turn back time to a point before the Fourth Amendment violation. Because the cocaine was the fruit of the Fourth Amendment violation, the trial judge should have granted the suppression motion in its entirety. See Robinson v. State, 615 So.2d 201, 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>); see also U.S. v. Simpson, 944 F.Supp. 1396, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants voluntary consent to search his apartment dissipated taint of prior illegal search (B) holding that cocaine trafficking was not a forcible felony so as to preclude the defense of selfdefense when the killing occurred during an attempt to traffic in cocaine (C) holding that no search occurred when police officers entered an open business (D) holding that observations made a during prior illegal search should not have been included in the affidavit for the search warrant (E) holding that where the defendant dropped cocaine during the course of an illegal police search no voluntary abandonment occurred
Output (English): holding that observations made a during prior illegal search should not have been included in the affidavit for the search warrant