WENDELL RODNEY WINCHESTER AND JEFFREY ALLEN KECK, 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.
This case reviews the denial of a motion to suppress evidence found in an apartment search. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the owner's consent to search was valid and that the defendants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area, especially after the Supreme Court's ruling on automatic standing.
Yes, the consent to search given by the owner was valid. The court held that the appellants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.
[1] A warrantless search of an apartment is permissible when the owner of the apartment provides written consent.
[2] A defendant must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises to challenge the legality of a 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“Here, the girlfriend told the officers that she was the owner of the apartment, signed a written consent form and directed the officers to the bedroom where the evidence was found.”
Establishes the basis for the court's finding that consent to search was validly obtained.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were found guilty of armed robbery. They appealed the denial of their motion to suppress evidence seized from an apartment. The apartment o…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on an appeal from a final judgment finding appellants guilty of armed robbery. Appellants’ appeal, inter alia, the denial of their motion to suppress certain evidence found in a search of the apartment in which they were arrested. The apartment was owned by the girlfriend of one of the appellants, who gave police a written consent form authorizing the search. Appellants rely on Silva v. State, 344 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1977).
There, a woman who lived with the accused, though not married, consented to a search of a closet, which contained only belongings of the accused and which she only went into when cleaning. The Florida Supreme Court held that her consent did not give police authority to conduct a warrantless search over the accused’s objections. Here, the girlfriend told the officers that she was the owner of the apartment, signed a written consent form and directed the officers to the bedroom where the evidence was found. At hearing on motion to suppress, Winchester testified that his name was on the lease as co-tenant. No lease was put in evidence.
Moreover, there was no showing that defendant, even if a co-tenant, had any expectation of privacy in the closet wherein the evidence was found.
We note that the United States Supreme Court has recently declared that defendants no longer are entitled to claim “automatic standing” to challenge the legality of a search without regard to whether they had an expectation of privacy in the premises searched. U. S. v. Salvucci, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980), overruling Jones v. U. S., 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). The same day, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rawlings v. Kentucky, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980), holding that a defendant charged with drug violation had no expectation of privacy in a search of an acquaintance’s purse in which he had placed his own drugs. We find those decisions controlling.
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities 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)
- Silva v. State, 344 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1977)