STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL L. CRIBBS, 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.
The State of Florida challenged a trial court's suppression of a shotgun discovered during a warrantless search of an automobile to which a non-owner in possession consented. The appellate court held that the vehicle owner lost standing to challenge the search by allowing another person exclusive possession of the car, and reversed the suppression order.
The court held that the search was legally conducted and that the vehicle owner lost his expectation of privacy and standing to challenge the search by allowing Baisden to possess the car exclusively. The suppression order was reversed.
[1] A trial court may not grant a motion to suppress evidence on grounds not raised in the motion, without giving the state an opportunity to rebut.
[2] A defendant's possession of contraband is an element of the crime, not a ground for suppression of evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“whether a warrantless search of an automobile which results in seizure of a shotgun is justified when a party, who is not the owner of the vehicle but apparently in possession of it, has given consent to that search”
States the central legal issue for the court's consideration regarding consent-based searches.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice responded to a prowler call and found a car matching the witness's description, occupied by Jesse Baisden. Baisden was questioned and stated he…
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 Standing To Challenge Search cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
This case arises out of a three-count robbery information filed against appellee and two others in Hillsborough County. The issue to be decided is whether a warrantless search of an automobile which results in seizure of a shotgun is justified when a party, who is not the owner of the vehicle but apparently in possession of it, has given consent to that search.
We hold that the search in this case was legally conducted and reverse the trial court’s order. Responding to a “prowler call,” police officers in Gainesville, Florida, spoke with the calling party who claimed three men had threatened him with a gun and forced him to leave the parking lot of his apartment building. While searching the area, the officers found a car occupied by a man sitting in the driver’s seat and matching the description given by the witness. This man, Jesse Baisden, got out of the car at the officers’ request and was read his Miranda rights. Although Baisden waived his Miranda rights and responded to the officers’ inquiries, he was not arrested immediately. The officers observed other articles in the vehicle which had been described to them by the witness. When asked why he was parked at the apartment complex, Baisden stated he had just let his girlfriend out and was waiting for her to return. Continuing their investigation, the officers asked if the vehicle belonged to Baisden, to which he first responded that it did, but later stated that it did not. He also stated he was from somewhere north of Gainesville and was just “passing through.”
When the officers asked Baisden for permission to search the car, he willingly consented, and the search resulted in discovery of a short-barreled shotgun under the driver’s seat. Appellee, the owner of the car, who was not present during the events leading up to the search of the car, was charged with three counts of armed robbery in Hillsborough County. The shotgun found under the seat was suppressed by the lower court from use at his trial.
We hold that suppression of this shotgun was error and reverse the order of the trial court. Once appellee allowed Baisden to possess his car exclusively, he lost his expectation of privacy, and therefore his standing to challenge the search of the automobile on the basis of lack of probable cause to arrest or search Baisden. State v. Hutchinson, 404 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
Although there is strong evidence of consent here, the trial court did not reach the consent issue, and instead granted the motion to suppress on lack of probable cause to arrest or search Baisden. We, therefore, reverse and remand to the trial court for treatment consistent herewith.
SCHEB, C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.