PABLO BURGOS, 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.
Burgos, an overnight guest in a residence, lacked standing to challenge a search of luggage in the guest bedroom because he affirmatively denied ownership or knowledge of the luggage, defeating any reasonable expectation of privacy.
An overnight guest lacks standing to challenge a search of luggage in a guest bedroom when the guest affirmatively denies ownership or knowledge of the luggage.
[1] An overnight guest's reasonable expectation of privacy does not extend to luggage in a guest bedroom when the guest affirmatively denies ownership or knowledge of the lug…
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 intelligenceBurgos was charged with cocaine trafficking. Officers executing a search warrant found him sleeping in a guest bedroom with closed luggage next to him…
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 Standing To Challenge Search cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Pablo Burgos (Appellant) was charged with trafficking in cocaine in an amount of 28 grams or more and less than 200 grams pursuant to section 893.03(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2003), or any mixture containing 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams of cocaine pursuant to section 893.135(1)(b)1.a., Florida Statutes (2003).
Appellant moved to suppress the drug evidence on the ground that as an overnight guest in the residence searched pursuant to a search warrant, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the luggage in the guest bedroom inside which the drugs were found. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96-97, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990).
Upon the denial of his motion to suppress, Appellant entered a no-contest plea to the charged offense and was adjudicated and sentenced accordingly. He expressly reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. See § 924.051(4) & —.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2003).
Given the testimony that the officers discovered Appellant sleeping in the guest bedroom and that the closed luggage was next to Appellant, but that Appellant affirmatively denied any knowledge or owner ship of the luggage searched, he lacked any legitimate expectation of privacy, and the trial court correctly found that Appellant lacked standing to change the search. See Olson, 495 U.S. at 96-97, 110 S.Ct. 1684; United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 91-92, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980).
We AFFIRM the judgment and sentence.
BARFIELD, C.J., and VAN NORTWICK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 222 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…he resident of a home lacked standing to challenge the search of the garage based on his “unequivocal statements that he knew nothing about that part of the residence and didn’t have anything to do with that part of the residence”); Burgos v. State, 939 So. 2d 219, 219-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that an overnight guest lacked standing to contest .the search of luggage in the. guest room where he .“affirmatively denied any knowledge or ownership of the luggage searched”); State v. Mallory, 409 So. 2d 1222…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1980)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990)