GEORGE A. MARRA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unreasonable Searches And Seizures cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
A prisoner in the State’s custody at Union Correctional Institute urges he was subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, when on a tip but without warrant or exigent circumstances correctional officers required him to open his personal locker, previously locked with a key in appellant’s possession. The locker contained 111 grams of cannabis. Appellant was convicted of its possession. We reject his contention. Although a citizen is not wholly stripped of constitutional protections when imprisoned for crime, search and surveillance necessary for security of the prison must qualify the prisoner’s reasonable expectations of privacy. This prisoner had no immunity from a good faith search for contraband conducted by correctional officers, in his presence, with or without his consent. See Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 8 L.Ed.2d 384 (1962) (dictum); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Appellant’s other point on appeal is not meritorious. State v. Lott, 286 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 913, 94 S.Ct. 2613, 41 L.Ed.2d 217 (1974).
Affirmed.
BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells v. State, 402 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1981)…se existed in this case. Appellee claims that probable cause is enough where the search was in a prison. Florida courts hold that search and surveillance necessary for prison security must qualify a prisoner’s expectation of privacy. Marra v. State, 341 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Prisoners can be subjected to very invasive searches if the search is “reasonable”, even absent probable cause, without violating their Fourth Amendment rights. United States v. Lilly, 576 F. 2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1978) (body cavity…
-
Vera v. State, 400 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…United States v. Lilly, 576 F. 2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1978). Thus, the scope of a prisoner’s Fourth Amendment rights is narrowed to accommodate institutional objectives. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Marra v. State, 341 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). As a result of the decreased expectation of privacy by inmates and the exigencies inherent in a prison environment, United States v. Stumes, 549 F. 2d 8…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- Wolff v. McDONNELL, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974)
- Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139 (U.S. 1962)
- State v. Lott, 286 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1973)
- Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 417 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1974)
- Lott v. Florida, 417 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1974)