LAWRENCE JOSEPH HEFFERNAN AND DEBORAH DENISE HEFFERNAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Appellants Lawrence and Deborah Heffernan challenged the search of a pop-up camper trailer located on the curtilage of a residence, arguing the trailer was not specifically described in the search warrant. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the trailer was properly searchable either as part of the curtilage of the principal residence or as a vehicle specifically authorized to be searched under the warrant.
The search of the camper trailer was lawful under the search warrant. The trailer was properly searchable under either of two rationales: (1) as part of the curtilage of the principal residence where the occupants had no greater expectation of privacy than in the main house, or (2) as a vehicle specifically authorized to be searched by the warrant.
[1] A search warrant authorizing the search of a residence and its curtilage may extend to a camper trailer parked next to the residence and attached to it by utility hook-up…
[2] A camper trailer, being a vehicle, may be searched pursuant to a warrant that authorizes the search of vehicles within the curtilage or adjacent to the premises described…
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“the camper trailer was within the curtilage, attached to the principal residence for all practical purposes, and owned by the occupant of that residence. There was no greater right to an expectation of privacy in the camper-trailer than there was in the principal residence.”
Establishes the primary rationale that the trailer was part of the curtilage and thus searchable as an extension of the principal residence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a controlled narcotics purchase by an informant, officers obtained a search warrant for a one-family residence in Hollywood, Florida, owned …
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 Felony Possession Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
Appellants pled nolo contendere to the charges of possession of cocaine and felony possession of marijuana, specifically reserving their rights to appeal an order denying all of their pre-trial motions, including a motion to suppress illegally seized evidence.
We affirm the trial court’s disposition of the motion.
Following a controlled purchase of narcotics by an informant equipped with a monitoring device, a search warrant was issued directing law enforcement officers to:
[E]nter said premises and search . . . for the aforedescribed illicit narcotics, . . . and the curtilage thereof, including the persons and their respective vehicles contained within the curtilage, or adjacent thereto, suspected of being connected with said violation. .
The “premises” consisted of a one-family residence located in Hollywood, Florida. The residence was occupied by one Russell R. Clark. Parked next to the residence on the same lot was a collapsible pop-up camper trailer also registered in the name of Russell Clark. The trailer was attached by umbilical cords for electricity and water hook-ups to the residence. The appellants, daughter and son-in-law of Russell Clark, lived in the trailer. When the officers arrived to execute the search warrant, appellant, Deborah Heffer-nan, and others were in the residence where they were detained until the search could be completed. The trailer was included in the search and narcotics were found in the trailer. The basis for the motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence was that the pop-up camper trailer was not specifically described in the search warrant. Under the circumstances the search of the trailer was appropriate under either of two rationales. First, the camper trailer was within the curtilage, attached to the principal residence for all practical purposes, and owned by the occupant of that residence. There was no greater right to an expectation of privacy in the camper-trailer than there was in the principal residence. The validly issued warrant authorizing the search of one necessarily authorized the search of the other. Secondly, a camper-trailer is a vehicle. The search warrant specifically authorized a search of vehicles owned by persons in the residence and located within the curtilage or adjacent thereto.
We have considered appellant’s additional points on appeal and find them to be without merit.
We therefore affirm the order from which this appeal is taken and the final judgment of conviction.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and BERANEK, JJ., concur.