Opinion ID: 2772305
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of the Evidence

Text: 6. The Wisconsin Supreme Court also found that the additional requirements for application of the good faith exception in Wisconsin set forth in Eason had been met. Marquardt, 705 N.W.2d at 889. - 22 - The ruling by a trial court on a motion to suppress is clothed with the presumption of correctness. Murray v. State, 692 So. 2d 157, 159 (Fla. 1997). A reviewing court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions in the manner most favorable to sustaining the ruling of the trial court. Id. “Appellate courts should accord a presumption of correctness to the trial court’s rulings on motions to suppress with regard to the trial court’s determination of historical facts, but appellate courts must independently review mixed questions of law and fact that ultimately determine constitutional issues.” Schoenwetter v. State, 931 So. 2d 857, 866 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598, 608 (Fla. 2001)). Marquardt alleged in his motion to suppress that the inference that there was no forced entry could not be drawn based on the affidavit attached to the application for the March 15 search warrant. Marquardt also alleged that the magistrate who issued the warrant was misled because Alfred Marquardt said that he had not seen Bill Marquardt since February 17, not that he had not seen him since the discovery of the body. According to Marquardt, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. In essence, Marquardt challenged the conclusion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court on the applicability of the good faith exception. - 23 - Evidence obtained in another state in conformity with the law of that state and the federal constitution is admissible in a Florida court. See Echols, 484 So. 2d at 571. In Echols, evidence against the defendant was obtained in Indiana. Id. The defendant alleged that the evidence was obtained in violation of Florida law, and thus should be excluded. Id. This Court declined to apply the exclusionary rule and stated that the interests of Florida would not be served by the exclusion of relevant evidence that had been obtained lawfully in another state in conformity with the law of that state and the United States Constitution. Id. This Court explained that the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, and that exclusion of the evidence in Florida would not have any discernible effect on police officers in other states. Id. Therefore, the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule would not be served by exclusion of the evidence. The March 15, 2000, search was conducted in Wisconsin by Wisconsin state law enforcement.7 The Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that the evidence Marquardt seeks to suppress was obtained in conformity with the good faith exception articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Leon, and also in 7. Wisconsin law enforcement again searched Marquardt’s cabin on March 18 and March 29, and searched Marquardt’s vehicle on March 18. Marquardt alleges that the evidence obtained during these searches should also be suppressed because they were supported by evidence obtained during the March 15 search. Thus, the validity of these later searches is controlled by the determination with respect to the March 15 search. - 24 - conformity with the additional protections mandated by its decision in Eason. Marquardt, 705 N.W.2d at 888.8 Thus, we hold that pursuant to Echols, the evidence obtained by Wisconsin law enforcement was properly admitted. The interests of Florida in the resolution of two cold murders would not be served by the exclusion of relevant evidence that was lawfully obtained in Wisconsin because application of the exclusionary rule in this case would not have any discernible effect on deterring police misconduct, since Wisconsin law enforcement personnel are not subject to Florida law.