STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DARRYL GLENN BROCKMAN, 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 a trial court's suppression of marijuana evidence found on defendant's vacant, unfenced, wooded lot. The appellate court reverses, holding that the officer's warrantless entry onto open fields to investigate a loose dog did not violate the Fourth Amendment because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vacant lot.
The officer's warrantless entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the vacant lot was an open field rather than curtilage, and there was no legitimate expectation of privacy. The Fourth Amendment's special protection does not extend to open fields, making the search reasonable and the evidence admissible.
[1] The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not extend to open fields, even if they are privately owned.
[2] An officer's entry onto vacant, unfenced, private property in search of the owner of a loose dog does not constitute an unconstitutional intrusion.
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“[T]he special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects is not extended to the open fields.”
Establishes the foundational principle that open fields lack Fourth Amendment protection, justifying the reversal of the suppression order.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy sheriff observed a loose dog near Brockman's vacant, unfenced, tree-covered lot in an undeveloped subdivision and walked up a trail onto the pr…
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 Open Fields Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
[*407] HARRIS, J.
Brockman owned a vacant, unfenced, tree-covered lot in an undeveloped section of a subdivision in St. Johns County. A deputy sheriff, while patrolling the area, observed a dog running loose near Brock-man’s lot. Because permitting a dog to run loose is a violation of a county ordinance, the deputy walked up a trail running into Brockman’s wooded lot in search of the owner. Instead he found trash, an old couch, and an abandoned truck. He also found in the bed of the truck and in the ground around the truck growing marijuana plants. There was no residence located on the property and the officer observed no one around. He left the area without disturbing the marijuana plants.
About a week later, the officer, while watching the property, observed Brock-man pull up in a vehicle and turn off his lights while the vehicle was still moving. The deputy approached Brockman and asked if he had been growing marijuana. Brockman admitted he had. After Brock-man was charged with cultivating marijuana, he moved to suppress the evidence because he claimed the officer had conducted an unconstitutional, warrantless search of his wooded lot. The trial court suppressed the evidence; we reverse.
Brockman relies on our previous opinion in State v. Witherington, 702 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), in which we held that an officer who, while investigating a misdemeanor, walked into the backyard of a residence and observed defendants smoking marijuana on the back porch of the residence had unconstitutionally intruded into an area of reasonably expected privacy. We find Witherington to be inapplicable to this case.
Here, we have an officer who entered vacant, unfenced, private property in search of an owner of a dog running loose. This is not a constitutional wrong. As the supreme court held in Oliver:
“[T]he special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects is not extended to the open fields.” Oliver, 466 U.S. at 176, 104 S.Ct. 1735. Since there is no curtilage involved in this case (Brockman’s vacant lot was, in effect, an open field), there was no legitimate expectation of privacy which would make the search unreasonable and thus there existed no valid grounds on which to suppress the evidence.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB and SHARP, W., JJ., concur. . Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1984)
- The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF THE United States v. Daisy Worldwide, Inc., 702 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- State v. Witherington, 702 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)