LARRY LOUIS LOMBARDI, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Murphy v. State, 413 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
  …saw the marijuana. Appellant points out that his premises and home were located in an area protected by a locked gate, and that nothing unlawful could be observed from the public road. Appellant relies on this court’s opinion in Kilpatrick v. State, 403 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) for his contention that the search and seizure were not justified under the “plain view” doctrine. The state responds that the helicopter observation of the marijuana provided a legal basis for obtaining a search warrant under th…
• Brennan v. State, 417 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
  …home — approximately the same distance as that involved here. The first district concluded, relying on DeMontmorency v. State, 401 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (marijuana outside the curtilage of the home), and distinguishing Kilpatrick v. State, 403 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (observation of marijuana made from within the curti-lage),1’ 2 that since the area in question was not constitutionally protected from governmental intrusion in the form of a helicopter [*1026] observation, evidence obtained pur…
• Diehl v. State, 461 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
  …his testimony, there remains ample evidence in the record to show appellant’s knowledge and control of the legally seized marijuana. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. ERVIN, C.J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur. . The case of Kilpatrick v. State, 403 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), is distinguished because the officer entered upon defendant's property and traveled one-half of a mile into such property, passing two dwellings before the marijuana was observed. See State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1981).…