MODESTO MORI, 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.
Modesto Mori appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a wallet found in his bedroom during a lawful police entry into his apartment. The court affirmed, holding that Mori abandoned the wallet by immediately disclaiming ownership before the officer inspected its contents, thus depriving him of standing to challenge its seizure.
The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress because Mori voluntarily abandoned the wallet by disclaiming ownership before the officer inspected or gained information from it, thus depriving Mori of standing to challenge its search and seizure.
[1] A defendant lacks standing to challenge the search or seizure of property they voluntarily abandon.
[2] A defendant's denial of ownership of property before any inspection or information is gained from it constitutes abandonment for purposes of standing.
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“Where a defendant voluntarily abandons property, he thereafter lacks standing to challenge its search or seizure.”
Establishes the legal principle governing the case—that voluntary abandonment of property deprives a defendant of Fourth Amendment standing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice received complaints that Mori's apartment and an adjacent neighbor's apartment had been burglarized. Officers arrested and handcuffed Mori, who…
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 Custodial Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The dispositive point on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress a wallet found in defendant Modesto Mori’s home, as well as the evidence which flowed therefrom. We affirm.
Almost concurrently, the police received complaints that Mori’s apartment as well as that of his adjacent neighbor had been burglarized. The neighbor lived in a disconnected apartment. Investigating officers ultimately arrested Mori and took him into custody by hand-cuffing his arms behind his back. Mori maintained he was a crime victim rather than a perpetrator. Acting on this claim, an officer and Mori entered Mori’s apartment to inspect his back door. Inside the apartment, as is customary, the officer asked for Mori’s identification. At the time of this encounter, Mori was dressed only in a waist pouch and undershorts. A search of his waist pouch disclosed several small caliber rounds of ammunition. Upon being asked for the identification, Mori started moving in the direction of his bedroom. The officer followed.
Once in the bedroom, the officer who followed Mori saw a wallet on the bedroom dresser. Standing next to the hand-cuffed Mori in front of the dresser, the officer simultaneously opened the wallet and asked Mori if it was his. Mori immediately and without hesitation denied ownership of the wallet, claiming that it was dropped by the person who burglarized his apartment. Thus, Mori denied ownership of the wallet before the officer inspected or gained any information whatsoever from it.
The reasons which led to Mori’s custodial arrest are not challenged. It is also an undisputed fact that police had the lawful right to be in Mori’s apartment at this time. See Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 7, 102 S.Ct. 812, 817, 70 L.Ed.2d 778, 785 (1982).
Where a defendant voluntarily abandons property, he thereafter lacks standing to challenge its search or seizure. State v. Daniels, 576 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (where defendant abandoned his suitcase, he lacked standing to challenge either the search or the seizure of its contents). A careful reading of the transcript confirms that the officer in the instant case performed no action other than simply holding open the wallet for the handcuffed defendant’s inspection, before the defendant dis claimed ownership. In light of these facts, we readily conclude that the trial court acted properly denying the motion to suppress. Under the circumstances, the defendant lacked the standing to make the challenge.
Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Fosmire, 135 So. 3d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…86 So. 3d 120, 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); St. John v. State, 400 So. 2d 779, 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Standing A defendant who voluntarily abandons property or disclaims ownership lacks standing to challenge its search and seizure. See Mori v. State, 662 So. 2d 431, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also State v. Jones, 454 So. 2d 774, 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding that “Courts have uniformly recognized that the disclaiming of ownership or knowledge of an item ends any legitimate expectation of privacy in that ite…
-
K.W. v. State, 183 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ry decision to avoid a police search by discarding evidence in an area where he has no Fourth Amendment protection.” Id. When a defendant voluntarily abandons property, the defendant lacks standing to challenge its search and seizure. Mori v. State, 662 So. 2d 431, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Courts consider the defendant’s intent, inferred from words and actions and other circumstances when determining if property has been abandoned for search and seizure purposes. Kelly v. State, 536 So. 2d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 1st…
-
Davis v. State, 226 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…voluntarily abandons property or disclaims ownership lacks standing to challenge its search and seizure.” State v. Fosmire, 135 So. 3d 1153, 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see also K.W. v. State, 183 So. 3d 1123, 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Mori v. State, 662 So. 2d 431, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State v. Daniels, 576 So. 2d 819, 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). For example, in Fosmire, when the defendant told the police that’ two of the cell phones seized during a consensual search were not hers, she had no standing to chal…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1982)
- State v. Margretta Daniels, 576 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)