DANIEL MICHAEL PRIORI, APPELLANT,
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.
Priori appeals his marijuana possession conviction entered upon a nolo contendere plea, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court reverses and remands because Priori failed to establish standing under the Fourth Amendment, as the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Salvucci and Rawlings overruled the automatic standing doctrine that Priori appeared to rely upon.
The court reverses and remands because Priori failed to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the areas where the marijuana was searched and seized, and the court cannot rule on the merits without first allowing Priori an opportunity to establish the requisite Fourth Amendment standing.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to allow a defendant to present additional testimony to establish standing during a suppression hearing, especially when s…
[2] A defendant may establish standing to challenge a Fourth Amendment violation by presenting evidence of their connection to the place searched.
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“Priori failed to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in any of the items or areas searched or seized.”
Establishes that Priori lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search and seizure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePriori was charged with possession of marijuana following a search and seizure. The marijuana was allegedly obtained through two separate searches on …
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 Automatic Standing (Jones V. United States) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Priori appeals his judgment of conviction for possession of marijuana entered upon his plea of nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Priori presents two grounds for reversal; that the search and seizure of the marijuana was tainted by a priof illegal search occurring earlier the same day; and that Priori’s consent to the second search and seizure was invalid. Appellant also complains the trial court erred in refusing to require the prosecutor, Whitley, to testify at the suppression hearing regarding the consent he obtained from Pri-ori at the scene. We decline to rule on the merits of the case at this time because it is doubtful whether Priori has standing to challenge any of the police activity. Priori failed to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in any of the items or areas searched or seized. Rather, Priori appears to have relied upon the automatic standing concept of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960).
Subsequent to the filing of the briefs in this cause, Jones was overruled in United States v. Salvucci, — U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980).
See also Rawlings v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980).
Although the tenor of the proceedings below indicates that Priori will not be able to demonstrate the requisite “legitimate expectation of privacy” in the areas where the marijuana was searched and seized, in an abundance of caution, we think it is appropriate to remand so that Priori will have an opportunity to demonstrate, if he can, that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated. See United States v. Salvucci, supra; Combs v. United States, 408 U.S. 224 (1972).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, BOOTH, and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ernie W. Norman v. State, 388 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…n the premises, Norman disavowed any interest in the premises. A remand to the trial court to permit Norman an opportunity to establish this legitimate expectation of privacy is unnecessary. Compare United States v. Salvucci, supra; Priori v. State, 386 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).…
-
Coster v. State, 392 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…this cause to enable the trial court to determine whether or not each defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched so as to afford him standing under the Salvucci doctrine. United States v. Salvucci, supra; Priori v. State, 386 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Reversed and remanded. . Defendants Ramon Rodriguez, Pedro Reyes, Mark Pridgeon, and David Coster were convicted of possession with intent to sell a controlled substance. They were sentenced to five years probation with four m…
-
ST. John v. State, 400 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…vacy in those items or areas searched or seized. Therefore, we must necessarily relinquish this case to the trial court to allow St. John the opportunity to demonstrate, if he can, that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Priori v. State, 386 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Coster v. State, 392 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Accordingly, this case is remanded to enable the trial court to determine whether St. John had a legitimate expectation of privacy in those items or areas searched or seized.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1960)
- United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1980)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1980)
- Combs v. United States, 408 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1972)