SHULMAN, Presiding Judge.
Defendants appeal their convictions of burglary, asserting error in the trial court's denial of their motions to suppress on the ground that the evidence obtained from the search and seizure was the "fruit" of an illegal arrest. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
The facts of the instant cases are strikingly similar to the facts of McKinney v. State,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.