STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
LUZ PIEDAD JIMENO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Supreme Court held that consent to search a vehicle extends to closed containers within it, and rejected a state constitutional privacy challenge because Florida law requires Fourth Amendment issues be construed in conformity with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Consent to search a vehicle extends to closed containers found within the vehicle, and article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution does not modify the requirement to construe Fourth Amendment issues in conformity with U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
[1] Article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution requires that Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues be construed in conformity with United States Supreme Court pre…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice obtained consent to search Jimeno's vehicle and found a closed brown paper bag inside. The bag was opened and contained contraband.…
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 Closed Containers cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court following its decision on certiorari review of State v. Jimeno, 564 So. 2d 1083 (Fla.1990). In Jimeno we had held that consent to search a vehicle did not extend to a closed brown paper bag found inside the vehicle. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search a car included consent to search the closed brown paper bag within the car. Florida v. Jimeno, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991).
Jimeno now argues that the opening of the paper bag violated his right to privacy pursuant to article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. We reject this argument because of article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, which requires this Court to construe Fourth Amendment issues in conformity with rulings of the United States Supreme Court. As explained in State v. Hume, 512 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1987), our right of privacy provision, article I, section 23, does not modify the applicability of article I, section 12, particularly since section 23 was adopted prior to the present section 12. We quash the decision of the district court of appeal and remand the case for trial.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD and GRIMES, JJ., concur. BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rush Limbaugh v. State, 887 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…stated that “our right of privacy provision, article I, section 23, does not modify the applicability of article I, section 12, particularly since section 23 was adopted prior to the present section 12.” 618 So. 2d at 1366; see also State v. Jimeno, 588 So. 2d 233 (Fla.1991) (same). Because the privacy amendment came before the conformity amendment, the privacy amendment does not apply to cases to which article I, section 12, is applicable. Logically, therefore, any statutes enacted after the adoption of the…
-
State v. Hester, 618 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 1993)…State v. Hume, 512 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1987), our right of privacy provision, article I, section 23, does not modify the applicability of article I, section 12, particularly since section 23 was adopted prior to the present section 12. State v. Jimeno, 588 So. 2d 233, 233 (Fla.1991). It is evident that our disposition of Jime-no controls the instant case. Therefore, we quash the decision below and remand with directions to reinstate Hester’s conviction for trafficking in cocaine. It is so ordered. overton, Mc…
-
State v. Dean, 639 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…otherwise provided herein. The identical argument made by the defendant here and accepted by the trial court, that the right to privacy may be utilized in place of the Fourth Amendment, was rejected by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Jimeno, 588 So. 2d 233 (Fla.1991). The United States Supreme Court had previously held in Jimeno that the defendant’s consent to search his vehicle encompassed a search of a closed brown paper bag found within the vehicle and therefore the search did not run afoul of the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991)
- State v. Hume, 512 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Jimeno, 564 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1990)