under section 787.03, Florida Statutes (1993), resulting from an incident where he took his son from Florida to Minnesota and concealed the child from the mother. He raised double jeopardy as a defense to the Florida charge and asserted that he had been convicted in Minnesota of a similar charge based on the same incident. The trial court dismissed the information and the State appealed. In Booth v. State, 436 So.2d 36 (Fla.1983), the Florida Supreme Court held that Flori da’s double jeopardy clause did not bar successive prosecutions in Florida and federal courts for charges arising out of the same conduct. The court held this was a matter of prosecutorial discretion that could best be curbed by a statutory bar to subsequent prosecutions. See also Koon v. State, 463 So.2d 201 (Fla.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1031, 105 S.Ct. 3511,
holding successive prosecutions are unconstitutional only if the state is acting merely as a tool of federal authorities holding federal court is not bound by terms of plea agreement between defendant and state authorities holding that when acting pursuant to a valid warrant the police did not violate the fourth amendment by acting outside their jurisdiction in violation of state law holding that determination of whether an official was acting on behalf of the state or the local government is determined by state law holding that state and federal authorities can prosecute an individual for the same offense