STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES R. ROWE, 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 appeals from a suppression order regarding marijuana seized from Rowe's backyard. The court affirmed the suppression, finding that Rowe manifested a reasonable expectation of privacy through a chain link fence and vegetable garden placement, and the police lacked a warrant or exigent circumstances to seize the plants.
The court held that Rowe manifested a comparable expectation of privacy to that recognized in State v. Rickard through the chain link fence and placement of marijuana among vegetables, and the seizure should be suppressed because the police lacked a warrant or exigent circumstances.
[1] A defendant manifests an expectation of privacy in their backyard when it is enclosed by a fence and the contraband is not readily visible from adjacent property.
[2] The use of binoculars to identify contraband in a backyard does not negate a defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
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“The supreme court in Rickard held that cases of this type, in which the police view contraband in a backyard from a point at which they have a legal right to be, must be determined upon a case by case basis. The criterion for the decision is whether the defendant manifested an actual expectation of privacy.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for analyzing backyard privacy cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA neighbor reported to police that Rowe was growing marijuana in his backyard, which was surrounded by a chain link fence. Police viewed the yard from…
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 Expectation Of Privacy cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
The state appeals from an order suppressing the seizure of marijuana from the appellee’s backyard. We stayed this appeal pending the supreme court’s decision in State v. Rickard, 420 So. 2d 303 (Fla.1982).
One of appellee’s neighbors advised the police that he thought appellee was growing marijuana in his backyard. Appellee’s yard was surrounded by a chain link fence. The police were unable to see any marijuana from the complainant’s property. They then went to the house on the opposite side of appellee’s property and, with the owner’s permission, viewed the appellee’s backyard. The police made their observations from inside the neighbor’s house because appellee and another person were in the yard. Even from this vantage point the police could not identify certain growing plants as marijuana with the naked eye.
However, with the use of binoculars, one of the policemen could make out marijuana growing in the yard at a point about 140 feet away. The marijuana plants were from two to twelve inches tall and were growing in the middle of a vegetable garden. Thereupon, the police seized the marijuana. They did not have a search warrant, and there was no suggestion of any exigent circumstances which might have required the police to take immediate action.
The supreme court in Rickard held that cases of this type, in which the police view contraband in a backyard from a point at which they have a legal right to be, must be determined upon a case by case basis. The criterion for the decision is whether the defendant manifested an actual expectation of privacy. In Rickard the court upheld the suppression of the seizure of marijuana from the defendant’s backyard because he had surrounded his house with a chain link fence and had erected a partition which obscured the view of his only neighbor. In the instant case, we think appellee manifested a comparable expectation of privacy which must be preserved. As in Rick-ard, the existence of the chain link fence was an indicium of a desire for privacy.
Moreover, the marijuana was planted in the midst of a vegetable garden. The police could not even identify the plants as marijuana without the use of binoculars. Unlike the case of State v. McConnell, 422 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the marijuana was not readily visible from adjacent property. We need not reach the question of whether the police could have obtained a search warrant based upon the information then known to them because they did not seek to do so. See Newberry v. State, 421 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We therefore uphold the order of suppression.
AFFIRMED.
SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McCONNELL, 422 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…he chooses to openly grow eight foot marijuana plants next to a public building. Consequently, we reverse the suppression order and remand the case for further proceedings. HOBSON, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . The other case is State v. Rowe, 422 So. 2d 75 (Fla.2d DCA 1982).…
-
State v. Loomis, 436 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…munity center does not create the requisite expectation of privacy which would require a police officer to obtain a warrant before seizing contraband from the premises. State v. McConnell, 422 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). However, in State v. Rowe, 422 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the same court found that the existence of a chain-link fence and the fact that the marijuana was in the midst of a vegetable garden in the defendant’s backyard created the requisite expectation of privacy required by Rickard. I…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rickard, 420 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1982)
- Newberry v. State, 421 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- State v. McCONNELL, 422 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)