State v. Lavazzoli, No. 61719

CourtFlorida Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtEHRLICH; ALDERMAN; ALDERMAN
Citation434 So.2d 321
PartiesSTATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. John M. LAVAZZOLI, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 61719
Decision Date07 July 1983

Page 321

434 So.2d 321
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
John M. LAVAZZOLI, Respondent.
No. 61719.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 7, 1983.

Page 322

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Howard K. Blumberg, Asst. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for respondent.

EHRLICH, Justice.

The limited issue for our consideration is whether the amendment to article I, section 12, Florida Constitution, effective January 4, 1983, retroactively applies to this case. For the reasons expressed herein, we hold that it does not.

In March 1979 respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated battery and was placed on probation for a period of five years. In July 1980 he was charged with violating the terms of his probation. Respondent filed a motion to suppress, seeking to exclude certain items from the hearing on the probation violation charges. At the hearing, the trial court refused to consider the motion on the basis that the exclusionary rule did not apply to probation revocation proceedings. The hearing proceeded and the trial court found that respondent had violated probation. The court extended the original term of probation by one year and imposed a special condition of probation that respondent be incarcerated for a period of three years.

Respondent appealed. Lavazzoli v. State, 408 So.2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The Third District Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred in refusing to consider respondent's motion to suppress. That court additionally noted that one of the grounds for revocation was valid, independent of the motion to suppress issue. The court ordered that the cause be remanded for a hearing on the motion to suppress, but noted that the trial court was free, if it chose, to revoke respondent's probation even if it found that the motion to suppress should be granted. Lastly, the court held that the three year imprisonment constituted an improper condition of probation under the authority of Villery v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1980). On rehearing, the district court certified its decision to this Court. We accepted jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

Subsequent to this Court's acceptance of jurisdiction, the people of the State of Florida approved an amendment to article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, effective January 4, 1983. 1 The amendment mandated conformity of the interpretation of article I, section 12's exclusionary rule with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution.

In March 1983, this Court ordered counsel for petitioner and respondent to file additional briefs on the applicability of the

Page 323

amended article I, section 12 and the applicability of State v. Dodd, 419 So.2d 333 (Fla.1982), to the instant case. Oral argument was then held in this cause.

State v. Dodd, decided by this Court prior to the article I, section 12 amendment, held that the exclusionary rule embodied in article I, section 12 did apply in probation revocation proceedings. Accordingly, were it not for the amendment to article I, section 12, there would be no question but that Dodd would control the instant case. The narrow question that confronts us is whether the amendment applies to this pending case.

It is a well-established rule of construction that in the absence of clear legislative expression to the contrary, a law is presumed to operate prospectively. Seddon v. Harpster, 403 So.2d 409 (Fla.1981); Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So.2d 239 (Fla.1977); Fleeman v. Case, 342 So.2d 815 (Fla.1976); Foley v. Morris, 339 So.2d 215 (Fla.1976). This rule applies with particular force to those instances where retrospective operation of the law would impair or destroy existing rights. Trustees of Tufts College v. Triple R. Ranch, Inc., 275 So.2d 521 (Fla.1973); In re Seven Barrels of Wine, 79 Fla. 1, 83 So. 627 (1920). In accordance with the rule applicable to original acts, it is presumed that provisions added by an amendment affecting existing rights are intended to operate prospectively also. Seddon v. Harpster, 369 So.2d 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), ctfd. question answered, approved, 403 So.2d 409 (Fla.1981). Nowhere in either article I, section 12 as amended or in the statement placed on the November ballot 2 is there manifested any intent that the amendment be applied retroactively. Therefore, the amendment must be given prospective effect only.

Further, the amendment unquestionably alters a substantive right. While as a general rule it is true that disposition of a case on appeal is made in accordance with the law in effect at the time of the appellate court's decision rather...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 practice notes
  • Brennan v. State, No. 90,279.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 8, 1999
    ...Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws. See, e.g., Gwong v. Singletary, 683 So.2d 109, 112 (Fla.1996); State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321, 323 5. The majority in Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 838, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988), refused to "draw a line" that woul......
  • Jardines v. State , No. SC08–2101.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 14, 2011
    ...of protection from governmental intrusion than that afforded by the Federal Constitution. See id. at 26–27 (citing State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla.1983)). [73 So.3d 60] Third, the lack of a uniform system of training and certification for drug detection canines makes it unconsti......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • November 26, 1985
    ...honor the legislative judgment (see, In re Lance W., 37 Cal.3d 873, 888, 210 Cal.Rptr. 631, 639, 694 P.2d 744, 752; State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321, 323 [Fla] ). This approach is consistent with that recommended in a leading evidentiary text: "An extensive literature has built up concerni......
  • Hapney v. Central Garage, Inc., No. 90-00475
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 1, 1991
    ...presumed that provisions added by an amendment affecting existing rights are intended to operate prospectively also. State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla.1983) (citations omitted). Only by erroneously interpreting the pre-1990 version of the statute to somehow contain the foregoing c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
82 cases
  • Brennan v. State, No. 90,279.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 8, 1999
    ...Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws. See, e.g., Gwong v. Singletary, 683 So.2d 109, 112 (Fla.1996); State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321, 323 5. The majority in Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 838, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988), refused to "draw a line" that woul......
  • Jardines v. State , No. SC08–2101.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 14, 2011
    ...of protection from governmental intrusion than that afforded by the Federal Constitution. See id. at 26–27 (citing State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla.1983)). [73 So.3d 60] Third, the lack of a uniform system of training and certification for drug detection canines makes it unconsti......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • November 26, 1985
    ...honor the legislative judgment (see, In re Lance W., 37 Cal.3d 873, 888, 210 Cal.Rptr. 631, 639, 694 P.2d 744, 752; State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321, 323 [Fla] ). This approach is consistent with that recommended in a leading evidentiary text: "An extensive literature has built up concerni......
  • Hapney v. Central Garage, Inc., No. 90-00475
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 1, 1991
    ...presumed that provisions added by an amendment affecting existing rights are intended to operate prospectively also. State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla.1983) (citations omitted). Only by erroneously interpreting the pre-1990 version of the statute to somehow contain the foregoing c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • AMERICA'S MISUNDERSTOOD CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 170 Nbr. 4, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...(providing definitive survey of rights amendments). (6) See FLA. CONST. art. I, [section] 12 (adopted 1982); see also State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So. 2d 321, 322 n.1, 323-24 (Fla. 1983) (explaining that the 1982 amendment added language prohibiting Florida courts from construing the exclusionar......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT