no lawful basis for the deputies to have stopped and detained Mr. .Battle,, and the shotgun and white powder would have to be suppressed as the product of an illegal search. See Musallam v. State, 133 So.3d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). But the occurrence and observation of the parked vehicle in the wrong direction of traffic was never a disputed fact in the suppression hearing. Both deputies testified, without contradiction, that the car was parked’on the wrong side of the road. And Mr. Battle specifically conceded within his motion’s “general statement of the facts on which the motion is based,” that the car had been illegally parked. See Cartwright v. State, 920 So.2d 71, 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). To be sure, in the hierarchy of public
holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence holding that similar agreement allowed the defendant to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress holding that testimony given by a defendant in support of a motion to suppress cannot be admitted as evidence of his guilt at trial holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality holding that where defendant conceded in his motion to suppress that an individual owned an apartment building the state did not have to then provethat individuals authority to grant permission to enter the buildings common area