WILLIAM GETZ, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained from warrantless search of appellant's property, holding that appellant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in stolen property stored near an accessible driveway on partially fenced acreage.
A warrantless search of property lacking adequate privacy protections yields admissible evidence when the defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the items discovered.
[1] A defendant lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in stolen property stored beside a driveway on partially fenced and posted acreage that is accessible to the public.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheriff entered appellant's uninhabited 10-acre tract without a warrant and discovered a stolen washer-dryer 300 feet down the driveway, leading to ap…
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
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.
The circuit court denied appellant’s motion to suppress a stolen light fixture introduced as evidence of appellant’s guilt. The sheriff entered upon appellant’s uninhabited 10-acre tract and discovered there, 300 feet down the driveway, an apparently stolen washer-dryer. That discovery led to appellant’s arrest and a further search producing the stolen light fixture. The issue is whether the initial warrantless entry and search were lawful. The property was fenced on three sides but not across the front, where the driveway led in. The property was posted with no trespassing signs that the sheriff said he did not see at nighttime, when he entered. On this evidence the trial judge could reasonably have found that appellant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in storing the stolen washer-dryer beside the driveway into this accessible, though posted, acreage. By the standards of DeMontmorency v. State, (Fla.1982) [1982 FLW 485], and State v. Brady, 406 So. 2d 1093 (Fla.1981), cert. granted,U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 2266, 73 L.Ed.2d 1282 (1982), the evidence was admissible.
We find no error in the court’s denial of appellant’s motion for discharge on speedy trial grounds.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.