Ashton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ashton v. State

516 So. 2d 55, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2761, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11313, 1987 WL 2115

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 2, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1332

StatusPublished

This text of 516 So. 2d 55 (Ashton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashton v. State, 516 So. 2d 55, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2761, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11313, 1987 WL 2115 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine and filed a motion to suppress the evidence against her. After denial of that motion, the appellant pled no contest to the charge, reserving the right to appeal the suppression issue. We affirm.

Police officers obtained the evidence in question when they stopped a vehicle in which the appellant was riding as a passenger and searched the area under the front seat. The appellant concedes that the stop of the vehicle was a lawful Terry stop,¹ but argues that the police officers did not have probable cause to search the vehicle. The appellant has asserted no property or pos-sessory interest in the vehicle nor an interest in the property seized. She has failed to show any legitimate expectation of privacy in the area of the vehicle which was searched. Under these circumstances, she is not entitled to challenge the search on fourth amendment grounds. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress.

SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine and filed a motion to suppress the evidence against her. After denial of that motion, the appellant pled no contest to the charge, reserving the right to appeal the suppression issue. We affirm.

Police officers obtained the evidence in question when they stopped a vehicle in which the appellant was riding as a passenger and searched the area under the front seat. The appellant concedes that the stop of the vehicle was a lawful Terry stop,¹ but argues that the police officers did not have probable cause to search the vehicle. The appellant has asserted no property or pos-sessory interest in the vehicle nor an interest in the property seized. She has failed to show any legitimate expectation of privacy in the area of the vehicle which was searched. Under these circumstances, she is not entitled to challenge the search on fourth amendment grounds. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress.

SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 So. 2d 55, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2761, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11313, 1987 WL 2115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashton-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack