STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK LEONARD ROME, 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 appealed a suppression order granted to a passenger in a vehicle where marijuana and cocaine were seized. The court reversed, holding that the passenger lacked standing to challenge the search because he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle as a mere passenger.
Appellee lacked standing to challenge the search because, as a mere passenger, he failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched area and therefore cannot invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule.
[1] A passenger in a vehicle generally lacks standing to challenge a search of the vehicle absent a showing of a legitimate expectation of privacy.
[2] The burden of establishing standing to challenge a search rests with the defendant.
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“As a mere passenger of the truck, appellee failed to establish a capacity to claim the protection of the fourth amendment in order to invoke the benefit of the exclusionary rule.”
Establishes the core holding that passengers lack standing to challenge vehicle searches under the Fourth Amendment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLieutenant Roy observed a parked pickup truck at a rest area and saw the driver, James Adair, holding what appeared to be a marijuana baggie and cigar…
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 Challenge Search cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The State appeals the trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress evidence seized from a truck in which appellee, Mark Leonard Rome, was a passenger. We reverse the court’s ruling on the ground that appellee failed to establish standing to challenge the search.
According to the testimony presented at the hearing on appellee’s motion to suppress, Lt. Roy of the Fort Walton County Sheriff’s Office was conducting plain-clothed surveillance from a roadside rest area in an unrelated case when he noticed two men in a parked pickup truck. While talking with Officer Steve Sunday, Roy observed the driver, James Adair, through the rear window of the truck holding what appeared to be a clear plastic baggie. Lt. Roy approached the driver’s window of the truck and observed Adair holding a package of cigarette rolling papers and a baggie of what appeared to be marijuana. After advising Adair and appellee that they were under arrest and reading the Miranda warnings, Roy seized the baggie from a cubbyhole in the dashboard where Adair indicated he had put it. In seizing the baggie from the cubbyhole, Roy also seized a small opaque bank envelope which contained approximately fourteen grams of cocaine.
Officer Sunday also testified at the hearing; however, neither Adair nor appellee testified, and the issue of standing was not raised by either party. The trial court entered an order granting the motion to suppress, indicating at the hearing that if he “could believe 100%” that Lt. Roy saw the baggie of marijuana in Adair’s hand when he approached the truck, he would have found the arrest to be legal.
We reverse the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to suppress, without reaching the legality of the search and seizure, on the basis that appellee failed to bear his burden of establishing 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. Jones, 454 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). As a mere passenger of the truck, appellee failed to establish a capacity to claim the protection of the fourth amendment in order to invoke the benefit of the exclusionary rule. See Rakas v. Illinois, supra; State v. Sears, 493 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Acebo v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); State v. Davis, 415 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); and State v. Bartz, 431 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to suppress is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
MILLS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hernandez, 718 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…where the passenger establishes a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched by demonstrating, for example, an ownership interest or other lawful proprietary interest in the area searched, see Amoss, 547 So. 2d at 716-17; State v. Rome, 500 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Acebo v. State, 415 So. 2d 909, 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In moving for suppression of the seized firearm, it is clear on the record before us that Hernandez failed to establish that he had any reasonable expectation of priva…
-
Amoss v. State, 547 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…evidence, it was appellant’s burden to establish that he had a reason [*717] able expectation of privacy in the passenger compartment of his co-defendant’s vehicle. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); State v. Rome, 500 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); State v. Bartz, 431 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Hutchinson, 404 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), rev. den., 412 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1982). A mere passenger normally does not have standing to contest the search of a car in…
-
State v. Fontana, 566 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…rom and remand the cause for further proceedings. HERSEY, C.J., concurs. STONE, J., dissents, with opinion. . Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Amoss v. State, 547 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); State v. Rome, 500 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); State v. Davis, 415 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).…
Authorities Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978)
- State v. Bartz, 431 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- State v. Audley Sears, 493 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Perez v. State, 454 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- State v. Jones, 454 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Glanton v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Acebo v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Rifkin, 415 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- State v. Davis, 415 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)