Marra v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marra v. State

341 So. 2d 284, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15079

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 19, 1977

DocketNo. DD-176

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 341 So. 2d 284 (Marra 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

Marra v. State, 341 So. 2d 284, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15079 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

A prisoner in the State’s custody at Union Correctional Institute urges he was subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, when on a tip but without warrant or exigent circumstances correctional officers required him to open his personal locker, previously locked with a key in appellant’s possession. The locker contained 111 grams of cannabis. Appellant was convicted of its possession. We reject his contention. Although a citizen is not wholly stripped of constitutional protections when imprisoned for crime, search and surveillance necessary for security of the prison must qualify the prisoner’s reasonable expectations of privacy. This prisoner had no immunity from a good faith search for contraband conducted by correctional officers, in his presence, with or without his consent. See Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 8 L.Ed.2d 384 (1962) (dictum); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Appellant’s other point on appeal is not meritorious. State v. Lott, 286 So.2d 565 (Fla.1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 913, 94 S.Ct. 2613, 41 L.Ed.2d 217 (1974).

Affirmed.

BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

A prisoner in the State’s custody at Union Correctional Institute urges he was subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, when on a tip but without warrant or exigent circumstances correctional officers required him to open his personal locker, previously locked with a key in appellant’s possession. The locker contained 111 grams of cannabis. Appellant was convicted of its possession. We reject his contention. Although a citizen is not wholly stripped of constitutional protections when imprisoned for crime, search and surveillance necessary for security of the prison must qualify the prisoner’s reasonable expectations of privacy. This prisoner had no immunity from a good faith search for contraband conducted by correctional officers, in his presence, with or without his consent. See Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 8 L.Ed.2d 384 (1962) (dictum); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Appellant’s other point on appeal is not meritorious. State v. Lott, 286 So.2d 565 (Fla.1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 913, 94 S.Ct. 2613, 41 L.Ed.2d 217 (1974).

Affirmed.

BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 So. 2d 284, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marra-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack