State of Florida v. Jessie Lee Howard

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: November 27, 2024
• Docket: 6D2023-4057
• Status: Published

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-4057 Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CF-008215-O _____________________________

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant, v.

JESSIE LEE HOWARD,

Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Kevin B. Weiss, Judge.

November 27, 2024

PER CURIAM.

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s order granting Jessie Lee

Howard’s motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P.

9.140(c)(1)(B). We accept Howard’s concession of error and reverse because he

lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of two packs he abandoned while

fleeing from law enforcement. Deputy Sheriff Richard Sheiman and Deputy Sheriff Justin Breaud stopped

Howard for driving a motorized scooter in the middle of the road. 1 Howard wore

two packs. Both deputies told Howard that he smelled like cannabis. Deputy

Sheiman then told Howard to hand over the packs. Howard fled, dropping both

packs in a hotel parking lot before Deputy Breaud caught him.

Deputy Sheiman searched both packs. One had a lock, which he broke after

Howard refused to divulge its combination to Deputy Breaud. Inside the pack,

Deputy Sheiman found a jar containing cannabis, a plastic bag containing trafficking

amounts of fentanyl, and a locked safe disguised as a dictionary. He asked Howard

for the safe’s combination, and Howard responded that he did not know what the

safe was and it did not belong to him. Deputy Sheiman broke the lock, finding

almost a thousand dollars in cash and trafficking amounts of crack cocaine. The

deputies’ body cameras captured this entire incident.

Howard argued that law enforcement needed a warrant to search the packs.

He insisted that the deputies knew they were his packs based on the requests for

assistance in opening them. The State responded that Howard lacked standing to

challenge the search because he had abandoned the packs. Believing itself bound

by our decision in Jean v. State, 369 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), the trial court

1 The trial court did not rule on the stop’s validity, and we do not address it here. 2 granted Howard’s motion to suppress. It reasoned that Jean required law

enforcement to obtain a warrant to search Howard’s packs after taking him into

custody.

The parties do not dispute the facts. We review de novo the trial court’s legal

conclusions. See State v. Hickman, 363 So. 3d 217, 219 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (citing

Wyche v. State, 987 So. 2d 23, 25–26 (Fla. 2008)). To invoke his protections under

the Fourth Amendment, Howard had to “establish standing by demonstrating a

legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or the item seized.” Hargrove

v. State, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D889, D890 (Fla. 6th DCA Apr. 19, 2024) (quoting

Strachan v. State, 199 So. 3d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)). When he abandoned

his packs, Howard forfeited his standing to challenge their subsequent search and

seizure. See id. The deputies thus required no warrant to search the abandoned

property. See id. (citing Caraballo v. State, 39 So. 3d 1234, 1245 (Fla. 2010)). By

contrast, Jean did not involve abandoned property, and therefore, the trial court’s

reliance on it was misplaced. See Jean, 369 So. 3d at 1237–38 (deputies removed

fanny pack strapped to Jean’s chest while arresting him).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL, J., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concur.

3 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marissa V. Giles, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED