DIANE HELEN WERLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Diane Werley appealed her conviction for possession of narcotics paraphernalia, challenging both the denial of her motion to suppress and the sufficiency of evidence. The Florida appellate court affirmed her conviction, holding that the private citizen's observation in the restroom did not implicate constitutional privacy protections and that the police officer had probable cause based on the station operator's report.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that constitutional privacy protections apply only against government invasion, not private citizen intrusion. The police officer had probable cause based solely on the station operator's description, and any observation by the officer was merely cumulative to that probable cause.
[1] A constitutional right to privacy is protected from invasion by governmental units, not private citizens.
[2] A law enforcement officer has probable cause to arrest when informed by a private citizen of observations that would justify an arrest.
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“this is a constitutional right provided citizens under both the Federal and State constitutions from invasion of privacy by agencies of governmental units; it is not a right protected from invasion of privacy by private citizens”
Establishes the core holding that constitutional privacy protections apply only to government action, not private citizen conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWerley used a service station restroom in Hialeah, Florida. The station operator looked through an opening in the wall and observed Werley fully cloth…
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 Constitutional Right To Privacy cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of her conviction for possession of narcotics paraphernalia. The record on appeal reveals the following:
The appellant, while driving her automobile, visited a service station in Hialeah, Florida. While there, she used the restroom facilities provided by the station. After she had been in the restroom for a period of ten or fifteen minutes, the operator of the station looked into the restroom through an opening in the wall, whereupon he observed the appellant fully clothed with narcotics paraphernalia laid out before her. He thereupon called the police. In response *815to his call, a law enforcement officer arrived and the station operator described the situation to him. The appellant still not having vacated the restroom facilities, the officer looked through the opening in the wall into same and observed her preparing to leave, whereupon he stationed himself outside the door to the restroom and apprehended the appellant when she came out. She was advised of her constitutional rights, was thereafter arrested, and charged with possession of narcotics paraphernalia. Upon a trial on a not guilty plea subsequent to the denial of a motion to suppress, she was found guilty and this appeal followed.
The appellant urges two grounds for reversal: (1) Error in the denial of the motion to suppress, contending that her privacy as protected under State and Federal constitutions was violated; (2) That the evidence failed to support a conviction under the charge.
We find no merit in the latter contention. Edwards v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 274; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 127; State v. West, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 457. As to the first contention, the alleged invasion of privacy, this is a constitutional right provided citizens under both the Federal and State constitutions from invasion of privacy by agencies of governmental units; it is not a right protected from invasion of privacy by private citizens. Palladino v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 837; Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576; Gandy v. Watkins, Dist.Ct. Middle Dist., Ala., N.D.1965, 237 F.Supp. 266; Barnes v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 373 F.2d 517. When the law enforcement officer arrived at the scene [from the description of what had taken place by the operator of the station] he had probable cause to apprehend and arrest the appellant. Walker v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 8; State v. Outten, Fla. 1968, 206 So.2d 392; Coykendall v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 702. The fact that he may or may not have violated her right of privacy by making an observation himself was merely cumulative to the probable cause that had already been conveyed to him by the private citizen. The law enforcement officer having initially received information which would justify probable cause to apprehend the appellant, this original probable cause was not vitiated by his subsequent actions.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, we do not find this alleged error to be well-taken, and the judgment and conviction here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
HENDRY, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cabrera v. Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 358 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…a Manufacturing Ice & Packing Co., 332 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1976); Thompkins v. Metropolitan Dade County, 345 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. Fuller, 275 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Werley v. State, 271 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Bader, 266 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).…
Authorities Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967)
- Williams v. Barron Roofing Co., 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. West, 262 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Barnes v. United States, 373 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Williams v. State, 239 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Edwards v. State, 213 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Walker v. State, 196 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Coykendall v. State, 230 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Palladino v. State, 267 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)