M.S., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress a search of an abandoned paper bag, but reversed the delinquency adjudication on the greater offense due to double jeopardy principles, vacating the lesser simple possession conviction.
When a juvenile abandons a paper bag, he relinquishes any legitimate expectation of privacy in it, so the search does not violate the Fourth Amendment, but double jeopardy principles prohibit adjudication on both simple possession and possession with intent to sell.
[1] Abandonment of property relinquishes any legitimate expectation of privacy, and a subsequent search does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
[2] Double jeopardy principles prohibit adjudication of delinquency on both a lesser offense of simple possession and the greater offense of possession with intent to sell.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.S., a minor, was adjudicated delinquent based on findings that he possessed cocaine and possessed cocaine with intent to sell. He pleaded nolo conte…
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 Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant M.S., a minor, challenges an adjudication of delinquency1 following a plea of nolo contendere specifically reserving for appellate review the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion. When he abandoned the paper bag, appellant relinquished any legitimate expectation of privacy in the property. Thus, the search of the bag did not violate his fourth amendment rights. See United States v. Collis, 766 F. 2d 219 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851, 106 S.Ct. 150, 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985); United States v. Jones, 707 F. 2d 1169 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 859, 104 S.Ct. 184, 78 L.Ed.2d 163 (1983); State v. Oliver, 368 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 383 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.1980). The state concedes, however, that the trial court erred in adjudicating appellant delinquent based on the separate findings that appellant possessed cocaine and possessed cocaine with the intent to sell. Under double jeopardy principles, both adjudications cannot stand; the adjudication of delinquency for the lesser offense of simple possession must be vacated. C.P. v. State, 505 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
. The order under review was rendered August 5, 1986, and filed August 6, 1986.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milhouse v. State, 521 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…nt that the separate convictions in these cases cannot stand under double jeopardy principles and that the convictions for possession of marijuana in each case must be vacated. C.P. v. State, 505 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987); accord M.S. v. State, 513 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987). Appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court in failing to entertain appellant’s motion to suppress during the trial. Savoie v. State, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1982); see also Davis v. State, 226 So…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Oliver, 368 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Miller v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 474 U.S. 851 (U.S. 1985)
- Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 474 U.S. 851 (U.S. 1985)
- United States v. Carless Jones and Eugene Harvey, 707 F.2d 1169 (10th Cir. 1983)
- Pierce v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 464 U.S. 859 (U.S. 1983)
- Estlack v. United States, 464 U.S. 859 (U.S. 1983)
- United States v. Collis, 766 F.2d 219 (6th Cir. 1985)
- C.P. v. State, 505 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)