State v. Perez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Perez

789 So. 2d 527, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9786, 2001 WL 804490

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-3252

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 789 So. 2d 527 (State v. Perez) 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. Perez, 789 So. 2d 527, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9786, 2001 WL 804490 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990)(concluding that the defendant, an overnight guest, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home in which he was staying and thus had fourth amendment standing to challenge a police intrusion into that home); Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988)(concluding a search pursuant to a warrant was not an independent search if the agents’ decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they had seen during the initial entry, or if information obtained during that entry was presented to the Magistrate and affected his decision to issue the warrant); Shannon v. State, 753 So.2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(observing that trial court’s ruling on motion to suppress is clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling); State v. Witherington, 702 So.2d 263, 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(citing to Potts v. Johnson, 654 So.2d 596, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), and finding that a back yard was within a ‘zone’ clothed by a reasonable expectation of privacy into which the government could not reasonably intrude to conduct a [war-rantless] search); Gonzalez v. State, 578 So.2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(concluding that initial illegal search of house by police rendered involuntary subsequent verbal and written consent where police demonstrated by their initial “sweep” that they had absolute right to search premises and that “consent” was mere formality); State v. Fernandez, 501 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(observing that invited guest in home had “reasonable expectation of privacy,” such as would give him standing to move to suppress evidence illegally seized from premises).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990)(concluding that the defendant, an overnight guest, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home in which he was staying and thus had fourth amendment standing to challenge a police intrusion into that home); Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988)(concluding a search pursuant to a warrant was not an independent search if the agents’ decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they had seen during the initial entry, or if information obtained during that entry was presented to the Magistrate and affected his decision to issue the warrant); Shannon v. State, 753 So.2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(observing that trial court’s ruling on motion to suppress is clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling); State v. Witherington, 702 So.2d 263, 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(citing to Potts v. Johnson, 654 So.2d 596, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), and finding that a back yard was within a ‘zone’ clothed by a reasonable expectation of privacy into which the government could not reasonably intrude to conduct a [war-rantless] search); Gonzalez v. State, 578 So.2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(concluding that initial illegal search of house by police rendered involuntary subsequent verbal and written consent where police demonstrated by their initial “sweep” that they had absolute right to search premises and that “consent” was mere formality); State v. Fernandez, 501 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(observing that invited guest in home had “reasonable expectation of privacy,” such as would give him standing to move to suppress evidence illegally seized from premises).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 So. 2d 527, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9786, 2001 WL 804490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perez-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack