Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

618 So. 2d 1365

Docket No. 76404.

State v. Hester

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Annie HESTER, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided May 27, 1993.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1993-05-27

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2008 · most notably 632 So. 2d 1124 - AM. OVERSEAS MARINE v. Patterson (1994), Kight v. Singletary (1995)

1 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“rejected the contention that our right-of-privacy provision under article I, section 23, of the Florida Constitution prohibited the introduction of [defendant's conversation in his home with an undercover police officer].”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 887 So. 2d 387 - Limbaugh v. State

“our right of privacy provision, article I, section 23, does not modify the applicability of article I, section 12, particularly since section 23 was adopted prior to the present section 12.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 887 So. 2d 387 - Limbaugh v. State

Relies on Florida v. Jimeno · Cuffle v. Avenenti · State v. Jimeno

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-05-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

¶2Gene Reibman, Sp. Appointed Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We review Hester v. State, 563 So.2d 191, 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), in which the district court of appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance:

IF A MOTOR VEHICLE IS LAWFULLY STOPPED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND THE DRIVER CONSENTS TO THE OFFICER SEARCHING THE VEHICLE, DOES THE CONSENT GIVEN EXTEND TO THE SEARCH OF A BROWN PAPER BAG FOLDED-OVER, WITHIN THE VEHICLE, WHICH IS NEITHER LOCKED NOR SEALED?

¶5We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.

¶6A similar question was certified to this Court in State v. Jimeno, 550 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We originally responded to the question in the negative. State v. Jimeno, 564 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1990), cert. granted, 498 U.S. 997, 111 S.Ct. 554, 112 L.Ed.2d 561 (1990). However, our decision *1366 was reversed by the United States Supreme Court. Florida v. Jimeno, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991). Upon remand, this Court quashed the decision of the district court of appeal that had affirmed the order suppressing the evidence, stating:

Jimeno now argues that the opening of the paper bag violated his right to privacy pursuant to article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. We reject this argument because of article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, which requires this Court to construe Fourth Amendment issues in conformity with rulings of the United States Supreme Court. As explained in State v. Hume, 512 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1987), our right of privacy provision, article I, section 23, does not modify the applicability of article I, section 12, particularly since section 23 was adopted prior to the present section 12.

¶7State v. Jimeno, 588 So.2d 233, 233 (Fla. 1991).

¶8It is evident that our disposition of Jimeno controls the instant case. Therefore, we quash the decision below and remand with directions to reinstate Hester's conviction for trafficking in cocaine.

¶9It is so ordered.

¶10OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

¶11BARKETT, C.J., concurs in result only.

/618/so2d/1365 · .json · Public domain