THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LAZARO GONZALEZ-VALLE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appealed a trial court's suppression of evidence obtained from a warrantless search of the defendant's home, consented to by his wife. The court held that a spouse's consent to search cannot override the other spouse's Fourth Amendment rights, particularly where the consenting spouse acts from spite or hostile motives.
The court held that the consent was invalid because: (1) in Florida, the spousal relationship alone does not authorize one spouse to waive the other's constitutional rights to protection against warrantless searches; and (2) even if exceptions existed, the consent here was invalid because the wife's motive was spite and hostility toward her husband, giving her no authority to waive his Fourth Amendment protections.
[1] A spouse's consent to a warrantless search of the marital home is invalid if given with a motive of spite or hostility towards the other spouse.
[2] In Florida, the marital relationship alone does not grant one spouse the authority to waive the other spouse's constitutional rights against a warrantless search.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In Florida, the husband and wife relationship (without more) does not authorize one spouse to waive the constitutional rights of the other to a warrantless search.”
Establishes the primary holding that spousal status alone does not permit waiver of the other spouse's Fourth Amendment rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 27, 1979, police officers responded to a call from the defendant's wife, who reported that her husband possessed a gun and narcotics. The wif…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unreasonable Searches And Seizures cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida seeks review of an order of the trial court suppressing certain evidence seized pursuant to a warrantless search. We affirm. On the morning of April 27,1979, several officers of the Dade County Public Safety Department went to the defendant’s home, in answer to a call by the defendant’s wife who had informed them (through a third person) that the defendant had a gun and some narcotics in his possession. Upon their arrival they waited for the defendant’s wife to return home, at which time they entered the home and the bedroom occupied by the defendant and proceeded to search the room. The search was made without a warrant but was made pursuant to consent thereto being given by the wife. Said search uncovered a gun and some narcotics, resulting in the defendant’s arrest.
The defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the basis of an illegal search and seizure. At hearing on the motion to suppress, it was revealed that the reason the wife wanted her husband arrested and consented to the search was that she and her husband were having marital difficulties and that she was angry and jealous over the fact that the defendant was having an affair with another woman. Based thereon, the trial court granted the motion to suppress.
The question to be determined is whether or not, under the circumstances of this case, the consent by the wife permitted a valid search of the premises. We hold it did not. In Florida, the husband and wife relationship (without more) does not authorize one spouse to waive the constitutional rights of the other to a warrantless search. Silva v. State, 344 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1977); State v. Blakely, 230 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). We recognize that there are exceptions to this rule; however, even if this case fell within one of those exceptions, the search would still be invalid because the motive of the defendant’s wife in consenting to the search was clearly one of spite, being hostile to the defendant, and made with the intent to harm him. Under such circumstances, the wife had no right to waive her husband’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures any more than any other person would have had. Silva v. State, supra; United States v. Mazurkiewicz, 431 F. 2d 839 (3rd Cir. 1970); Kelley v. State, 184 Tenn. 143, 197 S.W. 2d 545 (1946). Therefore, the search and seizure herein was illegal, being predicated upon an invalid consent.
We find the other point raised by the State herein to be without merit.
Based on the foregoing, the order appealed suppressing the fruits of the search is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Radcliffe, 483 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…ent to a search of joint premises, is that such consent may be vitiated by a malicious motive on the part of the consenting party to harm the other occupant. In support of this argument, the defendant relies upon the case of State v. Gonzalez-Valle, 385 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In that case, the defendant’s wife called the police to inform them that the defendant had a gun and some narcotics in his possession. The police arrived and, pursuant to the wife’s consent, searched the bedroom occupied by the d…
-
State v. Scott, 774 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…fendant’s residence, at the time of the search they had no reason to think otherwise even though she was the victim of the crime being investigated. The trial court’s reliance on Silva v. State, 344 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1977) and State v. Gonzalez-Valle, 385 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) is misplaced, as those cases were decided before the adoption of Article 1, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution. Moreover, Gonzalez-Valle is factually inapposite. In Gonzalez-Valle, the wife who had consented to the search of t…
-
United States v. McALPINE, 919 F.2d 1461 (10th Cir. 1990)…d a consent to search a defendant’s residence, even when the consenter cohabitates with the defendant, if the consent was given for the purpose of implicating the defendant in a crime, against the consenter or otherwise. See State v. Gonzalez-Valle, 385 So. 2d 681, 682 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980); Kelley v. State, 184 Tenn. 143, 146, 197 S.W. 2d 545, 546 (1946); see also May v. Texas, 780 S.W. 2d 866, 872-73 (Tex.Ct.App.1989) (court considered animus of estranged wife in determining effectiveness of consent). But…
Authorities Cited
- Silva v. State, 344 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1977)
- United States ex rel. William Cabey H-2519 v. Mazurkiewicz, 431 F.2d 839 (3d Cir. 1970)
- State v. Ennis Walter Blakely, 230 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)