STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL VERNON PALMER, 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.
Florida's First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order suppressing cannabis plants seized from the defendant's property, holding that the plants were located in an open field where the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
The court held that the seizure of the cannabis plants did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the plants were located in an open field rather than within the curtilage of the defendant's home, and therefore the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in that area.
[1] The "open fields" doctrine permits warrantless searches and seizures of areas outside the curtilage of a home, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
[2] A dilapidated fence and visibility of plants from adjoining property do not create a reasonable expectation of privacy in an open field.
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“the search and seizure of the growing plants took place in an open field where, under the facts of this case, defendant had no reasonable expectation, of privacy”
Establishes the core holding that the defendant had no Fourth Amendment protection in an open field location.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo deputies investigated a tip that cannabis was being grown on the defendant's 10-acre property. They followed a path through pine trees bordering t…
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 Open Fields Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
The state appeals an order of the trial court granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. The trial court reasoned that the seizure of 30 to 40 growing cannabis plants from defendant’s property occurred in an area clothed by defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy. We find that the search and seizure of the growing plants took place in an open field where, under the facts of this case, defendant had no reasonable expectation, of privacy. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order suppressing the growing cannabis plants seized from defendant’s property.
Two deputies were assigned to investigate a confidential informant’s tip that cannabis was being grown on defendant’s property. Defendant’s 10 acre tract of land was bordered on two sides by pine trees. There was a path which led into this stand of pine trees. The deputies proceeded down this path until they came within approximately 40 feet of an old dilapidated hog wire fence surrounding the back of defendant’s property. At this point they saw a number of large cannabis plants growing in the field on the other side of the fence.
As the deputies surveyed the plants, they saw defendant and another person walking through the field, tending to the plants. After several minutes, the deputies crossed the old dilapidated hog wire fence and arrested defendant and the other person. Subsequently, all of the cannabis plants were seized without a warrant.
The record does not indicate that the search and seizure occurred within the curtilage of defendant’s house. Instead, the search and seizure occurred in an open field where, applying the rationale recently enunciated in DeMontmorency v. State, 401 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy. The cannabis plants were visible from the adjoining property and were protected only by a fence in an advanced state of disrepair. These circumstances do not indicate that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area where the cannabis plants were growing. Under these circumstances the trial court should have applied the “open fields” doctrine. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order suppressing the growing cannabis plants seized from defendant’s property.
BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.