Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Sherman NEALY, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-09-02
Citations: 419 So. 2d 336
Docket Number: No. 60980
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Sherman NEALY, Respondent.
Judges: ADKINS, A. C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, SUNDBERG and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 419
Pages: 336–336

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.