STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JANET MARIE BARTZ, 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 of Florida appealed from a trial court's order suppressing evidence of cocaine and cannabis seized from a vehicle where the defendant was a passenger. The appellate court reversed, holding that a passenger in a vehicle lacks standing to challenge a warrantless search unless she establishes a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.
A passenger does not have standing to challenge a warrantless search of a vehicle unless the passenger establishes a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or the vehicle. The proponent of a motion to suppress bears the burden of demonstrating a legitimate expectation of privacy; automatic standing is not granted merely by being present in or occupying the vehicle.
[1] A defendant asserting a motion to suppress evidence must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.
[2] A passenger in a vehicle generally lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in areas of the vehicle not under their personal control.
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“the proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched”
Establishes the foundational requirement for standing to suppress evidence; burden is on defendant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice conducted a warrantless search of an automobile and seized controlled substances from the vehicle's center console and from the driver's person…
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 Legitimate Expectation Of Privacy cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, the State of Florida, has appealed from an order suppressing evidence seized during a warrantless search of an automobile in which the appellee, Janet Marie Bartz, was a passenger. The state contends that the appellee did not demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area where the property was seized and therefore the trial court erred in granting the appellee’s motion to suppress. We agree and reverse.
The state filed an information charging the appellee with possession of cocaine and cannabis. The appellee then filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the vehicle in which she was a passenger at the time of her arrest. Her motion alleged that the search and seizure was conducted without a search warrant and there was no probable cause for her arrest.
At the commencement of the hearing on the appellee’s motion, the assistant state attorney asserted that the appellee did not have “standing” to attack the search because she was a passenger in the vehicle. The court reserved ruling on the state’s assertion and the hearing proceeded. Testimony revealed that the controlled substances in question were seized from the center console of the automobile in which the appellee was a passenger and from the person of the driver of the automobile. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the appellee’s motion to suppress.
It is not necessary to determine if the trial court erred in its ruling on the issue concerning the legality of the search. Regardless of the propriety of the 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. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); State v. Hutchinson, 404 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The automatic standing rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980), and by this court in State v. Hutchinson. The record fails to reflect that the appellee had a lawful property interest in the automobile or the seized items, and there was no other evidence presented to establish that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the automobile in which she was a passenger. The trial court accordingly erred in granting the motion to suppress. Acebo v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); State v. W.E.T., 399 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
We therefore reverse and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Beja, 451 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…(Fla. 4th DCA 1981), petition for review denied, 408 So. 2d 1095 (1981); and that other cases have held that passengers of automobiles must establish a legitimate expectation of privacy before a motion to suppress can be granted. See State v. Bartz, 431 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Davis, 415 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Appellee Lennon contends that a legal distinction exists when an individual challenges the lawfulness of the initial stop. According to appellee, a passenger has standing to cha…
-
Harol Castillo v. State, 536 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…he car in addition to the legality of its continued detention, we conclude that he was entitled to do so. The search resulted from the detention. See State v. Beja, 451 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). See also Wulff; Delaney. Compare State v. Bartz, 431 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (in a case not shown to have involved an illegal stop of a car, a passenger in the car who had no lawful property interest in the car or in items seized from the car and who had no other basis for a legitimate expectation of priva…
-
Ulysses R. Williams v. State, 640 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…o complain of its search since he was a mere passenger, State v. Deen, 625 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), and he disavowed any possessory interest in the items seized. State v. W.E.T., 399 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Thus, as in State v. Bartz, 431 So. 2d 704, 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), “[t]he record fails to reflect that [Williams] had a lawful property interest in the automobile or the seized items, and there was no other evidence presented to establish that [he] had a legitimate expectation of privacy in…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1960)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978)
- United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1980)
- State v. Hutchinson, 404 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Glanton v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Acebo v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- State v. W. E. T., 399 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)