STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY FONTANA, 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 the suppression of cocaine evidence seized from a parked car where Fontana was a passenger. The court reversed the suppression order, holding that a passenger lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle's interior and therefore lacks standing to challenge the search.
The court held that Fontana, as a passenger, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the automobile and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure. Accordingly, the suppression order was reversed.
[1] A passenger in a vehicle generally lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle's interior, and therefore lacks standing to contest a search and seizure.
[2] A challenge to the legality of a search and seizure must be based on an infringement of a party's personal Fourth Amendment rights, not asserted vicariously.
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“a challenge to the legality of a search and seizure may not be asserted vicariously, but is appropriate only where government intrusion has infringed a party's personal fourth amendment rights”
Establishes the standing requirement for Fourth Amendment challenges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers observed a large group of individuals in a lounge parking lot known for illegal activity. Fontana was seen exiting the lounge and ente…
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 Contest Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellee was charged by information with possession of cocaine. His motion to suppress physical evidence was granted and the state appealed.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing reflected that police officers, patrolling in the early hours of the morning, observed a large number of individuals in the parking lot of a lounge. The area was known for illegal drinking by minors, gang fights, and drugs. Appellee was observed by the officers going and coming from the lounge with different groups of people. Ultimately, he exited the lounge and entered the passenger side of a parked automobile with several other individuals. Pri-or to entering the car, all of the individuals nervously looked around the parking lot as if to determine if anyone was watching them. Based upon their experience and training, the officers believed a drug transaction was taking place. They therefore drove their unmarked police car to a position behind the car appellee had entered as a passenger, approached said car and shined a flashlight into the interior thereof. Appellee was observed to be furtively trying to conceal something beneath the passenger’s seat. The officers ordered him out of the car and, as he stepped out, an officer saw a clear baggie containing a white powdery substance lying on the floor on the passenger’s side. The baggie was field-tested for contraband and proved positive. Thereupon, appellee and his compan ion were arrested and a sizeable sum of money was found on appellee’s person. At all times pertinent herein the car in which appellee was a passenger was parked with the engine off.
The state contends the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence because the officers had a founded suspicion under the various circumstances then existing. But more importantly, the state argues that appellee, as a passenger, lacked standing to contest the search and seizure.
In State v. Sears, 493 So. 2d 99, 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), which case is in accord with numerous other cases 1, it was held:
Thus, a challenge to the legality of a search and seizure may not be asserted vicariously, but is appropriate only where government intrusion has infringed a party’s personal fourth amendment rights. Dean v. State, 478 So. 2d 38 (Fla.1985). A passenger normally has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the interior of the car in which he is riding. (Rakas, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387).
Accordingly, we hold that appellee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in this automobile, and thus lacked standing to contest the search and seizure under attack. We therefore reverse the order appealed from 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).
STONE, Judge,
dissenting.
In my judgment, the tria, court could determine on this record that the contraband was uncovered as the fruit of an unlawful stop and detention of appellee. I would therefore affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Deen, 625 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Boulia, 522 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The record also shows that Deen failed to demonstrate that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car in which he was a mere passenger. See State v. Fontana, 566 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), aff'd, 581 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1991); Amoss v. State, 547 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Accordingly, we reverse the suppression order that the trial court entered in favor of both Deen and Lewis and remand the cause for further pr…
-
Fontana v. State, 581 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1991)…OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review State v. Fontana, 566 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), in which the district court reversed a trial court’s order suppressing cocaine found on the passenger’s side of a car and held that the passenger, Fontana, had no standing to challenge the search. We find conflict with Griggs v.…
-
Mobley v. State, 712 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Fontana, 566 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), approved, 581 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1991); State v. Sears, 493 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). GLICKSTEIN and GROSS, JJ., and GOLDENBERG, RENEE, Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978)
- Dean v. State, 478 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Audley Sears, 493 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Amoss v. State, 547 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- 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)
- State v. Rome, 500 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)