Diaz-Fonseca v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Diaz-Fonseca v. State

483 So. 2d 558, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 506, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11483

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 483 So. 2d 558 (Diaz-Fonseca 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

Diaz-Fonseca v. State, 483 So. 2d 558, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 506, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11483 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied Diaz-Fonseca a full evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress based upon a finding that he did not have standing to challenge the search because he had denied ownership of the luggage. We reverse for a full evidentiary hearing upon the authority of Shafi v. State, 377 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See also United States v. Richards, 638 F.2d 765 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097, 102 S.Ct. 669, 70 L.Ed.2d 638 (1981). Diaz-Fonseca claimed that the bag belonged to his uncle. In addition, he was in possession of claim tickets for the bag. He clearly had a sufficient possessory and custodial interest in the bag to have established standing to object to its search and seizure.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied Diaz-Fonseca a full evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress based upon a finding that he did not have standing to challenge the search because he had denied ownership of the luggage. We reverse for a full evidentiary hearing upon the authority of Shafi v. State, 377 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See also United States v. Richards, 638 F.2d 765 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097, 102 S.Ct. 669, 70 L.Ed.2d 638 (1981). Diaz-Fonseca claimed that the bag belonged to his uncle. In addition, he was in possession of claim tickets for the bag. He clearly had a sufficient possessory and custodial interest in the bag to have established standing to object to its search and seizure.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 So. 2d 558, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 506, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-fonseca-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack