Case No. 6D2025-0460Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CF-007838
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellant,v.
DIXIE LEIGH BOUNDS,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.
John E. Jordan, Judge.
May 29, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Wall v. State, 333 So. 3d 348, 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)(“Because the trial court could not determine that the evidence seized from Wall’spurse would inevitably have been discovered, we find that the court erred in denyingthe motion to suppress.”); cf. White v. State, 170 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)(holding that inevitable discovery doctrine applied where defendant indicated hewanted to take his backpack with him to the jail).WOZNIAK and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.PRATT, J., concurs specially.
Original opinion page 2
2NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARINGAND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILEDPRATT, J., concurring.I fully concur in the majority’s decision. On this set of facts, the State did notmeet its burden to show that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied pursuant tothe inventory search rationale and the trial court therefore appropriately suppressedthe contents of Appellee’s satchel. See generally Wall v. State, 333 So. 3d 348, 351(Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (“[The inevitable discovery] doctrine requires the State toestablish by a preponderance of evidence that the police ultimately would havediscovered the evidence independently of the improper police conduct by means ofnormal investigative measures that inevitably would have been set in motion as amatter of routine police procedure. There does not have to be an absolute certaintyof discovery but rather a reasonable probability.” (citations and internal quotationmarks omitted)).James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, AssistantAttorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.Adam Pollack, of Law Office of Adam L. Pollack, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
Opinion text and original PDF from Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal · Source opinion