STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD JAMES BROWN, 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 appeals a trial court's order suppressing cocaine evidence found in a suitcase at Fort Lauderdale Airport. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendant abandoned any legitimate expectation of privacy in the suitcase by denying ownership when confronted by deputies, thus lacking standing to challenge the search.
The court held that Brown lacked standing to challenge the search because he abandoned any legitimate expectation of privacy in the suitcase by denying ownership. A person must have a legitimate expectation of privacy in property to challenge a search; denial of ownership constitutes abandonment of such expectation.
[1] A defendant lacks standing to contest the search of luggage when they deny ownership of that luggage.
[2] Denying ownership of luggage constitutes an abandonment of any legitimate expectation of privacy in that luggage.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If Brown had admitted ownership of the suitcase but refused to consent to a search, he would have had standing to question the search, i.e., he would have had a legitimate expectation of privacy as to the suitcase. However, when Brown denied ownership thereof, he had no standing to question the search, i.e., he abandoned any legitimate expectation of privacy in the suitcase.”
Establishes the core holding that denial of ownership constitutes abandonment of privacy expectations and eliminates standing to challenge a search
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown and Daniel Stuart arrived at Fort Lauderdale Airport together on January 26, 1981, with Stuart purchasing roundtrip tickets to Chicago for both …
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 Contest Search cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The State of Florida seeks reversal of an order granting appellee’s motion to suppress evidence resulting from a luggage search at an airport.
The facts found by the trial judge are set forth in his order as follows:
“1. Both Defendant and Daniel Stuart entered the Fort Lauderdale Airport together at 9:40 P.M., on January 26, 1981. Daniel Stuart paid cash for both roundtrip tickets from Fort Lauderdale to Chicago and returning back within 12 hours. The Defendant checked in his luggage with the ticket agent. Mr. Stuart retained a shoulder bag on his person.
2. As both suspects proceeded through the concourse, Agent Capone and Brennan approached them and identified themselves as Sheriff’s Deputies.
3. Agent Brennan asked both suspects if they ‘had a minute to talk’ when both suspects cooperated.
4. The State’s testimony revealed that both suspects consented to a search of their luggage. However, since Mr. Stuart’s testimony was in direct conflict, the Court resolved such dispute in favor of the Defendant, in that the Defendant was silent as to such consent.
5. Both suspects voluntarily entered a nearby storage room for a luggage search after being asked if they ‘wouldn’t mind’ going into the room.
6. Once both suspects entered the room a suitcase was retrieved from the airlines and brought into the room. At that point, both the defendant and Mr. Stuart denied ever possessing or owning such luggage.
7. The suitcase was forced open by Deputies and approximately 2.2 lbs. of Cocaine was found therein.” (Emphasis added.)
Based upon those findings the trial judge held that Brown had standing to contest the search. He also found any consent given by Brown was involuntary. Thereupon, relying upon Monahan v. State, 390 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the trial court suppressed the contraband found in the suitcase in question.
The State contends that the trial court erred when it found that appellee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in luggage he abandoned. We agree with that contention.
Our study of the briefs and record causes us to conclude that Monahan is not apposite. The reversal in that case was based primarily on the fact that the police had insufficient probable cause to make an arrest; therefore, the seizing of the contraband following Monahan’s illegal arrest made the contraband subject to suppression. In the case at bar, there was no illegal arrest. Brown and his cohort consented to entering a nearby storage room for a luggage search. When the suspect suitcase was brought into the room Brown and his companion each announced it did not belong to him. A search of the suitcase produced cocaine.
If Brown had admitted ownership of the suitcase but refused to consent to a search, he would have had standing to question the search, i.e., he would have had a legitimate expectation of privacy as to the suitcase. However, when Brown denied ownership thereof, he had no standing to question the search, i.e., he abandoned any legitimate expectation of privacy in the suitcase. United States v. Colbert, 474 F. 2d 174 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Miller, 589 F. 2d 1117, 1131 (1st Cir. 1978); United States v. Canady, 615 F. 2d 694 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 862, 101 S.Ct. 165, 66 L.Ed.2d 78; United States v. Veach, 647 F. 2d 995 (9th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly we hold the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress. Therefore, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.
HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heath Baggett v. State, 849 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…of Bag-gett by placing him in handcuffs was also illegal. Finally, the State argues that because Baggett denied ownership of the property contained in at least one of the bags, he lacked standing to contest a search of the bag. See State v. Brown, 412 So. 2d 24, 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). “However, an unconstitutional seizure or arrest which prompts a disclaimer of property vitiates the disclaimer.” State v. Daniels, 576 So. 2d 819, 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). To determine whether a disclaimer is voluntary, cour…
-
Seoane v. State, 491 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984); State v. Jones, 454 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Brown, 412 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1195 (Fla.1982).…
-
State v. Charlemond Florius, 551 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…f the search of appellee’s bag, as the appellee denied ownership of the bag prior to the search. Since Appellee effectively abandoned the bag, the search of the bag was not unlawful and the evidence found therein was lawfully seized. State v. Brown, 412 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); United States v. Carrasquilla, 877 F. 2d 73 (D.C.Cir.1989). ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Miller, 589 F.2d 1117 (1st Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Veatch, 647 F.2d 995 (9th Cir. 1981)
- United States v. Canady, 615 F.2d 694 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Canady v. United States, 449 U.S. 862 (U.S. 1980)
- Smallwood v. Delaware, 449 U.S. 862 (U.S. 1980)
- Markham v. Laurendine, 390 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Monahan v. State, 390 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)