In order to prevail on a motion to dismiss based on the police misconduct that you describe, you would need to show that the conduct violates the sense of justice
and fairness in court
proceedings and that the appropriate remedy to deter the outrageous law enforcement conduct is to bar the defendant's prosecution.
There are no set of factors or elements to prove, but rather the due process argument is based on a general principle of law. In State v. Williams, 623 So.2d. 462 (Fla. 1993), the Florida Supreme Court stated:
Due process of law is a summarized constitutional guarantee of respect for personal rights which are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Due process of law imposes upon a court the responsibility to conduct "an exercise of judgment upon the whole course of the proceedings in order to ascertain whether they offend those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice." Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 416-417 (1945). Defining the limits of due process is difficult because "`due process,' unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances." Joint Anti-Facist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 162 (1951)(Frankfurter, J., concurring). Rather, due process is a general principle of law that prohibits the government from obtaining convictions "brought about by methods that offend `a sense of justice.'" Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 (1952).
You may want to read the case of State v. Williams, 623 So.2d. 462 (Fla. 1993) to get an idea of the concept of due process as it applies in this context. The case can be found here http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9701961088523055321&q=dismiss+police+misconduct&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10
In State v. Glosson, 462 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1985), the Supreme Court of Florida developed its own due process analysis in the context of police misconduct based on article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution. That case and the case of State v. Williams, 623 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1993) describe how the state constitutional guarantee of due process can be used to overturn criminal
convictions as a check against outrageous police conduct.
In State v. Williams, the Florida Supreme Court cited two cases from other states to illustrate when dismissal is appropriate for violation of due process based on police misconduct. State v. Hohensee, 650 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)(reversing a predisposed defendant's conviction for burglary because the police violated state due process rights in sponsoring and operating a burglary in which the defendant acted as a lookout); People v. Isaacson, 44 N.Y.2d 511, 406 N.Y.S.2d 714 (1978)(reversing a predisposed defendant's conviction for drug sales because police misconduct and trickery violated state due process rights). The Florida Supreme Court in Glosson, at 1085, agreed that "governmental misconduct which violates the constitutional due process right of a defendant, regardless of that defendant's predisposition, requires the dismissal of criminal charges." And in the Williams case, the court granted relief
where the police manufactured the crack cocaine which they sold in a sting operation.
Please feel free to ask any follow up questions.