Case Name: Manatee CLEMONES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-06-09
Citations: 638 So. 2d 54
Docket Number: No. 82136
Parties: Manatee CLEMONES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 638
Pages: 54–55

Head Matter:
Manatee CLEMONES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 82136.
Supreme Court of Florida.
June 9, 1994.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Joan Fowler, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen. and Carol Cob-ourn Asbury, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We review State v. Clemones, 625 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The district court certified this question as one of great public importance:
WHETHER THE MANUFACTURE OF CRACK COCAINE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS FOR USE IN A REVERSE-STING OPERATION CONSTITUTES GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT WHICH VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, WHERE THE CHARGE IS SOLICITATION TO PURCHASE, I.E. WHETHER MET-CALF V. STATE, 614 S0.2D 548 (FLA. 4TH DCA 1993), IS CORRECT?
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const.
We recently resolved the issue presented in this case in Metcalf v. State, 635 So.2d 11 (Fla.1994), where we found a due process violation when police used illegally manufactured drugs in a reverse-sting operation. On authority of Metcalf we quash the decision under review. We answer the first part of the certified question in the affirmative. We answer the second part — whether Metcalf v. State, 614 So.2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), is correct — in the negative.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
McDONALD, Senior Justice, dissents.