STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
GEOVADLY GARRY PIERRE
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.
The trial court's order suppressing EDR data is affirmed due to an insufficient record, without reaching the merits of whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists in EDR information.
[1] A suppression order may be affirmed on the ground of an insufficient record when a suppression hearing is conducted without witnesses or factual stipulations, without rea…
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 intelligence“there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information retained by an event data recorder”
The trial court relied on State v. Worsham, 227 So. 3d 602, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) in granting the suppression motion.
The State appealed a suppression order regarding data obtained from an Event Data Recorder in the defendant's vehicle. The suppression hearing was con…
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 Suppression Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-3852
GEOVADLY GARRY PIERRE,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Decision filed May 8, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Dan Traver, Judge.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Nicole B. Dickerson, of Law Office of Nicole
B. Dickerson, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
EVANDER, C.J., and LAMBERT, J., concur. GROSSHANS, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
The State appeals an order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress data obtained from an Event Data Recorder (EDR) located inside the defendant’s vehicle. In granting the suppression motion, the trial court relied on State v. Worsham, 227 So. 3d 602, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding that “there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information retained by an event data recorder”). On appeal, the State asks us to reject Worsham and reverse the suppression order. However, based on the insufficiency of the record—including a suppression hearing without any witnesses or factual stipulations—we have no occasion to analyze the reasoning in Worsham which, among other things, likened EDRs to cell phones. Id. at 604−06.1 Accordingly, I agree that the trial court’s order should be affirmed.
1 Further, the parties have not advanced any argument as to whether the physical entry into the defendant’s vehicle to download data from the EDR constituted a search under the trespass theory. See Mobley v. State, 834 S.E. 2d 785, 792 (Ga. 2019) (“The retrieval of data without a warrant at the scene of the collision was a search and seizure that implicates the Fourth Amendment, regardless of any reasonable expectations of privacy.”).