March v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

March v. State

725 So. 2d 472, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1604, 1999 WL 76148

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2174

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 725 So. 2d 472 (March 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

March v. State, 725 So. 2d 472, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1604, 1999 WL 76148 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Minnesota v. Carter, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998)(Defendants who are guests on premises for purely commercial transactions have no standing to contest seized evidence because they have no expectation of privacy.); United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 87-88 n. 4, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980) (“It is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the [exclusionary] rule’s protection.”); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 171-172, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969) (“The established principle is that suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence.”); Jones v. State, 648 So.2d 669, 675 (Fla.1994) (“A ‘search’ occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed.”)

W. SHARP, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Minnesota v. Carter, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998)(Defendants who are guests on premises for purely commercial transactions have no standing to contest seized evidence because they have no expectation of privacy.); United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 87-88 n. 4, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980) (“It is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the [exclusionary] rule’s protection.”); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 171-172, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969) (“The established principle is that suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence.”); Jones v. State, 648 So.2d 669, 675 (Fla.1994) (“A ‘search’ occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed.”)

W. SHARP, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 So. 2d 472, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1604, 1999 WL 76148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/march-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack