State v. Jimeno
| Decision Date | 24 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 75057,75057 |
| Citation | 588 So.2d 233 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Luz Piedad JIMENO, et al., Respondents. 588 So.2d 233, 16 Fla. L. Week. S700 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.
Benjamin S. Waxman and Jeffrey S. Weiner, Weiner, Robbins, Tunkey, Ross, Amsel & Raben, P.A., and Sidney Efronson, Miami, for respondents.
This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court following its decision on certiorari review of State v. Jimeno, 564 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1990). In Jimeno we had held that consent to search a vehicle did not extend to a closed brown paper bag found inside the vehicle. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search a car included consent to search the closed brown paper bag within the car. Florida v. Jimeno, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991).
Jimeno now argues that the opening of the paper bag violated his right to privacy pursuant to article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. We reject this argument because of article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, which requires this Court to construe Fourth Amendment issues in conformity with rulings of the United States Supreme Court. As explained in State v. Hume, 512 So.2d 185 (Fla.1987), our right of privacy provision, article I, section 23, does not modify the applicability of article I, section 12, particularly since section 23 was adopted prior to the present section 12.
We quash the decision of the district court of appeal and remand the case for trial.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LS v. State
...v. Nevada, 531 U.S. 856, 121 S.Ct. 138, 148 L.Ed.2d 90 (2000); State v. Olivas, 122 Wash.2d 73, 856 P.2d 1076 (1993). 8. In State v. Jimeno, 588 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1991), after the United States Supreme Court had found that a vehicle search did not violate the Fourth Amendment, the Florida Sup......
-
Limbaugh v. State
...I, section 12, particularly since section 23 was adopted prior to the present section 12." 618 So.2d at 1366; see also State v. Jimeno, 588 So.2d 233 (Fla.1991) (same). Because the privacy amendment came before the conformity amendment, the privacy amendment does not apply to cases to which......
-
Hendrix v. State, 1D02-1192.
...L.S. v. State, 805 So.2d 1004, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (citing State v. Hume, 512 So.2d 185, 188 (Fla.1987), and State v. Jimeno, 588 So.2d 233 (Fla.1991)). Appellant contends that his motions to suppress should have been granted because no warrant was obtained before the medically intrusi......
-
State v. Dean, 93-3103
...that the right to privacy may be utilized in place of the Fourth Amendment, was rejected by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Jimeno, 588 So.2d 233 (Fla.1991). The United States Supreme Court had previously held in Jimeno that the defendant's consent to search his vehicle encompassed a ......