State v. Batista
| Decision Date | 03 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1182,87-1182 |
| Citation | 524 So.2d 481,13 Fla. L. Weekly 1062 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1062 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jose Luis BATISTA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Mark S. Dunn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
We reverse the order under review which suppressed cocaine seized from the defendant. Contrary to the trial court's view, it is legally inconsequential--although perhaps emotionally provocative--that the seizing police officers entered the grounds of the thirty-unit apartment building by scaling a six-foot high wall at the rear of the property, since it plainly appears from a fair reading of the record that the general public had unimpeded access to the building through the front entrance to the property. Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that a resident (a status which the defendant alleged but did not prove) may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common entries, hallways, and spaces of a locked or otherwise secured apartment building, see, e.g., United States v. Carriger, 541 F.2d 545 (6th Cir.1976); but see United States v. Holland, 755 F.2d 253, 256 (2d Cir.1985) (); United States v. Eisler, 567 F.2d 814, 816 (8th Cir.1977) (); see generally 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 2.3(b), at 388-89 & cases collected at n. 44 (2d ed. 1987), no resident of the unlocked and unsecured premises and apartment building in the present case could have had such a reasonable expectation in those shared areas. Moreover, the defendant cannot complain that the events leading to the discovery of the cocaine in his possession were unlawful: when a man named Garcia ran from the uniformed officers and threw down a concealed gun in the common hallway, the officers lawfully pursued him to an apartment which Garcia entered; in pursuit of Garcia--now a fleeing felon--they lawfully stepped into the open doorway of the apartment, United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); and, from that lawful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Titus v. State
...areas." The court thereupon found the paraphernalia in plain view. The trial judge further explained that he read State v. Batista, 524 So.2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), cited by the prosecutor, to hold that no resident of an unlocked, unsecured common or shared area in an apartment building ha......
-
State v. Titus
...v. State, 696 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with State v. Batista, 524 So.2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. At issue here is whether the common living areas within rooming houses sho......
-
Friedson v. State
...District Court held that a resident had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the shared areas of an apartment building. 524 So.2d 481, 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Unlike in Batista, the evidence in this case is that Appellant does not live in a large apartment building with a common lobby, h......
-
Irizary v. State
...private dirt road led from the public street around back to the "chop shop" which was otherwise open to the public, see State v. Batista, 524 So.2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Diehl v. State, 461 So.2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); State v. Clarke, 242 So.2d 791, 793-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. de......