Brennan v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Brennan v. State

447 So. 2d 1353, 1984 Fla. LEXIS 2779

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 1984

DocketNo. 62533

StatusPublished

This text of 447 So. 2d 1353 (Brennan v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brennan v. State, 447 So. 2d 1353, 1984 Fla. LEXIS 2779 (Fla. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OVERTON, Justice.

We accepted jurisdiction in this case having found conflict between the district court’s decision, cited as Brennan v. State, 417 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and this Court’s decision in State v. Brady, 406 So.2d 1093 (Fla.1981), cert. granted, 456 U.S. 988, 102 S.Ct. 2266, 73 L.Ed.2d 1282 (1982). After receiving briefs on the merits and hearing oral argument, we conclude that no conflict was created by the district court’s decision. The district court found that petitioner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his marijuana patch and that evidence obtained by police observation was admissible under the “open fields” doctrine. Here, there was insufficient external manifestation of privacy exhibited by petitioner in the marijuana patch, as required by Brady and DeMontmorency v. State, No. 61,179 (Fla. Oct. 28, 1982) (rehearing pending). Both Brady and DeMontmorency are factually distinguishable from the instant case, and no conflict arises.

For the reasons expressed, we dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.

ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

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

OVERTON, Justice.

We accepted jurisdiction in this case having found conflict between the district court’s decision, cited as Brennan v. State, 417 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and this Court’s decision in State v. Brady, 406 So.2d 1093 (Fla.1981), cert. granted, 456 U.S. 988, 102 S.Ct. 2266, 73 L.Ed.2d 1282 (1982). After receiving briefs on the merits and hearing oral argument, we conclude that no conflict was created by the district court’s decision. The district court found that petitioner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his marijuana patch and that evidence obtained by police observation was admissible under the “open fields” doctrine. Here, there was insufficient external manifestation of privacy exhibited by petitioner in the marijuana patch, as required by Brady and DeMontmorency v. State, No. 61,179 (Fla. Oct. 28, 1982) (rehearing pending). Both Brady and DeMontmorency are factually distinguishable from the instant case, and no conflict arises.

For the reasons expressed, we dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.

ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 So. 2d 1353, 1984 Fla. LEXIS 2779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brennan-v-state-fla-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack