THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DOUGLAS RICARDO PEREZ, AND GILBERTO BLANCO, 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 suppression order in a criminal case involving defendants Perez and Blanco. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling that suppressed evidence based on Fourth Amendment privacy principles and the doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree.
The court affirmed the trial court's suppression order, confirming that the defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises and that the police intrusion was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
[1] An overnight guest in a home has a reasonable expectation of privacy, affording Fourth Amendment standing to challenge police intrusion.
[2] A search warrant is not independent if the decision to seek the warrant was prompted by observations during an initial, potentially unlawful, entry.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the defendant, an overnight guest, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home in which he was staying and thus had fourth amendment standing to challenge a police intrusion into that home”
Establishes that overnight guests have Fourth Amendment standing to challenge warrantless searches of homes where they are staying
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not detail the specific facts of the case, referencing only that the trial court issued a ruling on a motion to suppress evidence. Th…
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 Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990)(concluding that the defendant, an overnight guest, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home in which he was staying and thus had fourth amendment standing to challenge a police intrusion into that home); Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988)(concluding a search pursuant to a warrant was not an independent search if the agents’ decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they had seen during the initial entry, or if information obtained during that entry was presented to the Magistrate and affected his decision to issue the warrant); Shannon v. State, 753 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(observing that trial court’s ruling on motion to suppress is clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling); State v. Witherington, 702 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(citing to Potts v. Johnson, 654 So. 2d 596, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), and finding that a back yard was within a ‘zone’ clothed by a reasonable expectation of privacy into which the government could not reasonably intrude to conduct a [war-rantless] search); Gonzalez v. State, 578 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(concluding that initial illegal search of house by police rendered involuntary subsequent verbal and written consent where police demonstrated by their initial “sweep” that they had absolute right to search premises and that “consent” was mere formality); State v. Fernandez, 501 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(observing that invited guest in home had “reasonable expectation of privacy,” such as would give him standing to move to suppress evidence illegally seized from premises).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gelin, 844 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…a manner according great deference to the trial court’s ruling. See Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598, 605 (Fla.2001)(quoting Murray v. State, 692 So. 2d 157, 159 (Fla.1997), and citing Walker v. State, 707 So. 2d 300, 311 (Fla.1997)); State v. Perez, 789 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Shannon v. State, 753 So. 2d 148, 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). However, where, as in the instant case, the Court’s inquiry involves mixed questions of law and fact that ultimately determine constitutional rights, appellate courts…
Authorities Cited
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1988)
- Gonzalez v. State, 578 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Potts v. Johnson, 654 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Latonda Latrell Shannon v. State, 753 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- State v. Fernandez, 501 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- 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)