Bishram v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bishram v. State

77 So. 3d 720, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18180, 2011 WL 5554852

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 16, 2011

DocketNo. 3D10-2032

StatusPublished

This text of 77 So. 3d 720 (Bishram 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

Bishram v. State, 77 So. 3d 720, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18180, 2011 WL 5554852 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Morsman, 394 So.2d 408, 409 (Fla.1981) (“Under Florida law it is clear that one does not harbor an expectation of privacy on a front porch where salesmen or visitors may appear at any time.”); Nieminski v. State, 60 So.3d 521, 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“[I]f the address ... had been a more traditional lot in a residential neighborhood surrounded by a white picket fence and a gate that closed but did not lock, no one would reasonably suggest that the knock and talk was improper or that officers were required to describe the picket fence in the affidavit used to obtain the warrant.”); see generally Shapiro v. State, 390 So.2d 344, 347 (Fla.1980) (“In order for [the defendant] to claim that his fourth amendment rights were violated, he must first establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy to be free from this particular intrusion.”).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Morsman, 394 So.2d 408, 409 (Fla.1981) (“Under Florida law it is clear that one does not harbor an expectation of privacy on a front porch where salesmen or visitors may appear at any time.”); Nieminski v. State, 60 So.3d 521, 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“[I]f the address ... had been a more traditional lot in a residential neighborhood surrounded by a white picket fence and a gate that closed but did not lock, no one would reasonably suggest that the knock and talk was improper or that officers were required to describe the picket fence in the affidavit used to obtain the warrant.”); see generally Shapiro v. State, 390 So.2d 344, 347 (Fla.1980) (“In order for [the defendant] to claim that his fourth amendment rights were violated, he must first establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy to be free from this particular intrusion.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 3d 720, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18180, 2011 WL 5554852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishram-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack