JUAN ACEBO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Juan Acebo appeals his conviction for conspiring to traffic in methaqualone, challenging the admission of evidence seized during warrantless searches of two cars. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that Acebo lacked standing to challenge the searches because he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in either vehicle or the items seized.
Acebo lacked standing to challenge the searches because he failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in either car or the seized items. Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be vicariously asserted; the burden is on the party seeking to suppress evidence to show a legitimate expectation of privacy, which typically requires demonstrating an ownership interest or other lawful property interest in the area searched.
[1] Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be vicariously asserted.
[2] A proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.
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“Fourth amendment rights are personal rights which may not be vicariously asserted.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that Fourth Amendment protections cannot be asserted on behalf of others
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAcebo was a passenger in a car when authorities conducted a warrantless search of its trunk, seizing an aircraft-type radio, strobe lights, flashlight…
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 Personal Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Juan Acebo appeals a final judgment and sentence for conspiring to traffic in methaqualone and for trafficking in methaqualone. He argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized by authorities during warrantless searches of the trunk of a car in which he was a passenger and of a companion car stopped several minutes before.1 The State contends that he does not have “standing” to contest either search. The State is correct and therefore we affirm.
Fourth amendment rights are personal rights which may not be vicariously asserted. See, e.g., Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34, 99 S.Ct. 421, 424-25, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 230, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 1569, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973). Regardless of the apparent unconstitutionality of a search, the proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. See Rakas, 439 U.S. at 130, n.1, 99 S.Ct. at 424, n.1; State v. Hutchinson, 404 So. 2d 361, 365-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
Generally, an important consideration in deciding whether the proponent has carried his burden by establishing that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched is whether he demonstrated an ownership interest or other lawful property interest in the area searched. See Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143-44, n.12, 99 S.Ct. at 430, n.12. The record does not show that Acebo had a lawful property interest in either car. Further, the record does not reveal that he had even a lawful property interest in the seized items. Nothing else in the record indicates that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the cars or seized items. Thus, his assertion that the searches violated his constitutional rights must fall. See Rakes.
Acebo’s other arguments on appeal are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur. . Seized from the trunk of the car in which Acebo was a passenger were an aircraft-type radio, four aircraft strobe lights, four flashlights, and a .44 revolver. Seized from the other car were eight boxes of narcotics, a flight log, three weapons, two weapon clips, a weapon box, and a walkie-talkie radio.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.A.R. v. State, 640 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…. The court in J.J.S. held that the sentence before it was improper because it flowed from a single, general order of probation for two separate crimes. The J.J.S. court cited to Ward v. State, 429 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) and Glanton v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), both of which were predicated on Dorfinan v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1977), wherein the supreme court held that a single, general sentence may no longer be imposed for two or more crimes. Dorfman’s rationale has been employed…
-
J.J.S. v. State, 465 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…a missile into an occupied vehicle. We agree with the appellant that his sentence is improper because it flows from a single, general order of probation but for two separate crimes. Ward v. State, 429 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Glanton v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) We also agree with the appellant that it was reversible error for the lower court to order that the amount and manner of restitution be determined by the appellant’s counselor. In T.W. v. State, 395 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981),…
-
Leal v. State, 424 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…one and conspiracy, arguing that the trial court erred in denying suppression of certain physical evidence. We adopt the reasoning and holding from our opinion in the appeal of appellant’s codefendant, tried separately, Juan Acebo. Acebo v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Holding there to be no error in the denial of suppression below, or otherwise, we affirm the convictions. OTT, C.J., and HOBSON and RYDER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978)
- Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1973)
- State v. Hutchinson, 404 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)