STATE
v.
HARRIS
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 State appealed a trial court's order suppressing evidence obtained from a warrantless search of Dominic Harris's property. The trial court found that Harris had not abandoned his privacy interest in the property. The appellate court affirmed the suppression order, holding that Harris maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched property.
The court affirmed the trial court's determination that Mr. Harris had not abandoned his reasonable expectation of privacy in his property when it was seized and searched by the police, thereby upholding the suppression of the evidence.
[1] A trial court's factual findings regarding whether a defendant abandoned his privacy interest are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence support, while the legality…
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“A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the appellate court 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.”
Standard of review applied to the trial court's suppression order
Police conducted a warrantless search of property belonging to Dominic Harris. At issue was whether Harris had abandoned his privacy interest in the p…
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 Abandonment Of Privacy Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals the trial court’s order suppressing evidence seized in a warrantless search of Dominic Harris’s property. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court determined that Mr. Harris had not abandoned his privacy interest in the subject property. This Court’s review of the suppression order involves a mixed question of law and fact; the trial court’s factual findings are presumed correct if supported by competent, substantial evidence, while we review, de novo, the trial court’s ruling on the legality of the search. See State v. Milewski, 194 So. 3d 376, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “[A] trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the appellate court 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.” Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 806 (Fla. 2002).
With this standard in mind, we affirm the trial court’s determination that Mr. Harris had not abandoned his reasonable expectation of privacy in his property when it was seized and searched by the police.
Affirmed.
EMAS, C.J., and SCALES, J., concur. The State of Florida v. Dominic Harris 3D17-2703
LINDSEY, J.
I respectfully dissent and would reverse the trial court’s suppression order based on the authority of State v. Jackson, 240 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (reversing trial court’s order suppressing evidence and finding abandonment where defendant had possession of a bag and divested himself of the possession of that bag in the view of the police officer).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002)
- State v. Jackson, 240 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- State v. Milewski, 194 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)