ROCCO ANTHONY CONTI, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1981)
  …have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of his right to exclude. Respondent’s privacy expectation in the backyard was valid where objects placed there were not visible from outside. This case can be distinguished from Lightfoot v. State, 356 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (cited by the state), by the different points from which officers viewed marijuana growing. In Lightfoot, the policeman first saw the marijuana from a neighbor’s yard. The view was unobstructed, evidencing no expectation of priva…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• State v. Rickard, 420 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1982)
  …ferent situation. Police were in an orange grove where they had a legal right to be when they observed marijuana growing in respondent’s backyard. The plants were open to view only fifty feet away; therefore, no search occurred. Lightfoot v. State, 356 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 833 (1978), is pertinent because of certain factual similarities. There, also, the marijuana was open to the view of police officers who were where they had a legal right to be. In Lightfoot and the current c…
• State v. Redding, 362 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
  …h is in plain view. Hornblower v. State, 351 So. 2d 716 (Fla.1977).1 When contraband is [*172] spotted under circumstances falling within the purview of the plain view doctrine, it may be immediately seized because of its nature. Lightfoot v. State, 356 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). However, if the items in question are innocent by themselves, they may only be seized if the officer has probable cause to believe that what he sees in plain view is incriminating evidence. State v. O’Steen, 238 So. 2d 434 (Fla.…