TONY L. BARNES, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Tony Barnes appeals his conviction for manufacturing marijuana after police seized plants from his backyard without a warrant. The court affirms, holding that Barnes failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area where the plants were located because his property was only partially fenced and the plants were visible from adjacent property without obstruction.
The court affirmed the denial of Barnes's motion to suppress, holding that Barnes failed to establish an actual expectation of privacy in the area where the marijuana plants were observed because his property was only partially fenced and the plants were visible without obstruction from adjacent property.
[1] A warrantless seizure of contraband is permissible if the contraband is in plain view from a vantage point adjacent to the property.
[2] A defendant must exhibit an actual expectation of privacy in an area for that area to be protected by the Fourth Amendment.
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“Privacy should be recognized in areas where a person has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy, if society recognizes that expectation as reasonable.... The defendant in the present case exhibited an actual expectation of privacy by putting the marijuana behind a shed and erecting a plywood partition to obstruct the neighbor's view.”
Establishes the legal test from Rickard for when Fourth Amendment privacy protection applies to backyard areas—requires actual expectation of privacy recognized as reasonable by society.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 9, 1995, a police investigator acting on a report that Barnes was growing marijuana observed marijuana plants in Barnes's backyard from propert…
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 Fourth Amendment Protections cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWRENCE, Judge.
Tony L. Barnes (Barnes) directly appeals his conviction and sentence for the manufacture of marijuana found in his backyard after a warrantless search. We affirm.
A police officer seized the marijuana plants in question on May 9, 1995, in Gulf County. Barnes pleaded nolo contendere to manufacturing marijuana, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
The Florida Supreme Court, answering the question whether contraband seen in plain view by police in the defendant’s back yard from a point adjacent to the property may be seized without a warrant in the absence of exigent circumstances, tells us:
[PJrivacy should be recognized in areas where a person has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy, if society recognizes that expectation as reasonable.... The defendant in the present case exhibited an actual expectation of privacy by putting the marijuana behind a shed and erecting a plywood partition to obstruct the neighbor’s view.
State v. Rickard, 420 So. 2d 303, 306 (Fla.1982) (citation omitted) (emphasis added) (holding that a warrantless seizure of marijuana plants from defendant’s backyard was improper and required suppression of those plants where the defendant had erected a partition so that the plants could not be seen from the adjoining property).
The instant record shows that an investigator, acting on a report that Barnes was growing marijuana, observed the plants without obstruction from property adjacent to the rear of Barnes’s property. It is undisputed that Barnes’s property was only partially fenced. The record moreover contains no evidence of the proximity of the contraband plants to Barnes’s trader, or to the front portion of Barnes’s property — the portion that was partially fenced.
The record consequently fails to show that Barnes had an actual expectation of privacy regarding the area of his property where the seized marijuana plants were observed. Rickard. The trial judge thus properly denied Barnes’s suppression motion. State v. Lewinson, 644 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that, where defendant’s home was not fenced in such a manner as to prevent others from viewing his property, a warrant was unnecessary to seize his marijuana); Masters v. State, 453 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding that the defendant’s marijuana patch, located outside a common fence or enclosure, was not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection).
We accordingly affirm Barnes’s judgment and sentence.
MICKLE, 'J., concurs.
WEBSTER, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruiz v. State, 743 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…was fully visible and accessible to any member of the general public in the alley. See State v. Clarke, 242 So. 2d 791, 793-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Bamber, 630 So. 2d 1048, 1054-55 (Fla.1994); Barnes v. State, 691 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The area was not used for “those intimate activities associated with domestic life and the priva-cies of the home.” Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301 n. 4, 107 S.Ct. 1134. Under these circumstances, the seizure of the vehicle was proper. Se…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rickard, 420 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1982)
- State v. Loris Eudora Lewinson, 644 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Powell v. State, 453 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Masters v. State, 453 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)