Peter Arnold v. State
Peter Arnold appealed the revocation of his probation and the resulting sentence, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a sworn statement and that conducting his sentencing hearing remotely via Zoom, over his objection, violated his due process right to be physically present. The Third DCA affirmed the revocation (finding any suppression error harmless given overwhelming other evidence) but reversed the sentence, holding the trial court failed to conduct the required balancing of Arnold's due process right to physical presence against the State's competing interests before proceeding remotely under the COVID-era administrative order.
Key facts
- Peter Arnold was on probation; the trial court revoked his probation based on a sworn videotaped statement and other evidence, then sentenced him remotely via Zoom over his objection to be physically present.
- Arnold appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the videotaped statement and violated his due process rights by conducting sentencing remotely without balancing his right to physical presence against the State's interests.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion gives criminal practitioners a concrete, enforceable framework for challenging remote sentencing proceedings conducted during emergency orders: a preserved objection requires the trial judge to… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.