Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

625 So. 2d 968

State v. Deen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 22, 1993

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1993-10-22

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]he record fails to reflect that [Williams] had a lawful property interest in the automobile or the seized items, and there was no other evidence presented to establish that [he] had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the automobile in which [he] was a passenger.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 640 So. 2d 1206 - Williams v. State

Relies on New York v. Belton · United States v. Robinson · Gustafson v. Florida

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-10-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2011

8 state decisions

40199320002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GOSHORN, Judge.

¶1The State of Florida appeals the order of the trial court suppressing the marijuana found in an automobile which Lewis was driving and in which Deen was a passenger. A review of the undisputed testimony presented at the suppression hearing shows that the police seized the marijuana as the result of a valid search incident to the lawful arrest of Lewis. See New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973); United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); State v. Smith, 529 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Boulia, 522 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The record also shows that Deen failed to demonstrate that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car in which he was a mere passenger. See State v. Fontana, 566 So.2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), aff'd, 581 So.2d 585 (Fla.1991); Amoss v. State, 547 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Accordingly, we reverse the suppression order that the trial court entered in favor of both Deen and Lewis and remand the cause for further proceedings.

¶2REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.
/625/so2d/968 · .json · Public domain