State v. Bynes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Bynes

392 So. 2d 310, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17902

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 24, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1287

StatusPublished

This text of 392 So. 2d 310 (State v. Bynes) 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

State v. Bynes, 392 So. 2d 310, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17902 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state brings this appeal from an order suppressing physical evidence found in the defendant’s wife’s purse. We reverse.

Defendant and his wife were jointly charged with possession of cocaine. Only Solomon Bynes, however, moved to suppress the cocaine which had been found in his wife’s purse. The trial court granted the motion, apparently applying the “automatic standing” rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). Since the rendition of the order, however, the Supreme Court has expressly overruled Jones in United States v. Salvucci, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980). Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings without prejudice to the defendant’s right to attempt to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Norman v. State, 388 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1980), 1980 FLW 1849; State v. Muzevsky, 388 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state brings this appeal from an order suppressing physical evidence found in the defendant’s wife’s purse. We reverse.

Defendant and his wife were jointly charged with possession of cocaine. Only Solomon Bynes, however, moved to suppress the cocaine which had been found in his wife’s purse. The trial court granted the motion, apparently applying the “automatic standing” rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). Since the rendition of the order, however, the Supreme Court has expressly overruled Jones in United States v. Salvucci, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980). Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings without prejudice to the defendant’s right to attempt to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Norman v. State, 388 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1980), 1980 FLW 1849; State v. Muzevsky, 388 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 So. 2d 310, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bynes-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack