STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE N. MUZEVSKY, RICHARD WILLIAMS, MARK S. LORANGER, JAMES F. COLLINS, AND RICHARD S. KOLLATH, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that under current Supreme Court precedent, standing to challenge a search and seizure requires a showing of a legitimate expectation of privacy, not automatic standing based on possession.
Appellees were charged with possession of contraband. The trial court granted their motion to suppress evidence from a search of a boat and a house, f…
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
DOWNEY, Judge.
We previously issued an opinion in this case affirming the judgment and sentence appealed from. In that opinion we held that appellant’s Points III, IV and V were without merit and the trial court’s ruling involving said points was correct. We went to some pains to discuss Points I and II posed by the State, since those points involved the standing of all of the appellees except Muzevsky to question the search and seizure involved herein. Contrary to appellant’s contentions, we held that as of that writing it was our view the concept of standing announced in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), was still viable and until expressly changed by the Supreme Court of the United States it should be followed. Thus, we affirmed the ruling of the trial court that the defendants had standing to attack the search and seizure.
On timely petition for rehearing, the State has called to our attention the case of United States v. Salvucci, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980) wherein the Supreme Court of the United States overruled Jones v. United States, supra. In Salvucci, the Court held that one charged with possession of contraband does not have automatic standing to attack an unlawful search and seizure. To have standing to attack the illegality of a search and seizure the person must show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.
No such showing was made by the appel-lees (except Muzevsky, and his showing of standing only applied to the house) at the hearing on the motion to suppress. Therefore, as to the appellees other than Muzev-sky the order of suppression was erroneous. Like this court, the trial court did not have the benefit of Salvucci, supra, at the time said suppression order was entered. In view of the foregoing, we hold that Muzev-sky had standing to attack the search and seizure of the house. But Muzevsky, Lor-anger, and Kollath did not have standing to attack the search of the boat, and Collins and Williams had no standing as to the search of the house.
Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is granted, our opinion of May 21, 1980, is vacated, the order of suppression is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions that the circuit court deny the motion to suppress as to (a) all appellees with regard to the marijuana seized on the boat, and (b) all appellees except Muzevsky with regard to the marijuana seized from the house.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coster v. State, 392 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…llowing analysis of Aider-man). I disagree with the majority’s apparent conclusion that Salvucci, which dealt only with the rights of non-owners to challenge allegedly invalid searches, affected this doctrine in any way. See also, State v. Muzevsky, 388 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).…
-
Anthony Rizzo & 1978 Sea Ray v. State, 396 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…2); Coster v. State, 392 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981)), and hold that the defense failed to show Rizzo had standing to attack the search of the dwelling. The circuit court’s denial of the motion to suppress was therefore correct. State v. Muzevsky, 388 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We further hold that the State’s unobjected to proof that marijuana was transferred from the vessel to the dwelling clearly supports the circuit court’s conclusion that the vessel was illegally trafficking in marijuana and ther…
-
State v. Davis, 415 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…to object to the search and seizure. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). See also Inchaustegui v. State, 392 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 402 So. 2d 610 (Fla.1981); and State v. Muzevsky, 388 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Adamosky, 407 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Kayes v. State, 409 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); State v. Hutchinson, 404 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Norman v. State, 388 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Reversed and…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)