State v. Miyasato, 2D00-936.
Decision Date | 07 March 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 2D00-936.,2D00-936. |
Citation | 805 So.2d 818 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, v. Andrew MIYASATO, Appellee/ Cross-Appellant. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Patricia E. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
The State appeals the trial court's order granting Andrew Miyasato's motion to suppress marijuana, which detectives found in his pocket. Mr. Miyasato cross-appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress marijuana and Xanax, which the detectives found in his bedroom desk. We affirm the order of suppression and reverse the order denying suppression.1 We hold that, when an adult lives with his or her parents and maintains a separate bedroom, the police may not obtain consent to search inside furniture in that bedroom from a parent without first establishing that the parent has equal access and common authority over the contents of that furniture.
Mr. Miyasato was twenty-three years old at the time of these events. He lived in a bedroom in his parent's house with his girlfriend and their infant child. He did not work or pay his mother rent, although he did occasionally purchase food for the household. There was no rental agreement between Mr. Miyasato and his mother.
The facts in this case are well explained by Judge Maloney in his suppression order:
We affirm the trial court's suppression of the marijuana found in Mr. Miyasato's pocket. The deputy did not have probable cause to either arrest or search Mr. Miyasato at the time that he grabbed the corner of the plastic bag and removed the bag from Mr. Miyasato's pocket. See Harris v. State, 352 So.2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The deputy admitted that this search was not intended to be a Terry2 frisk. He was not conducting a search for officer safety on the belief that the bulge was a weapon. See State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820, 824-25 (Fla.1981). The record does not establish a basis to permit this seizure as the result of a "plain feel" during a lawful pat down. See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 369-70, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); Hines v. State, 737 So.2d 1182, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). See also T.W.C. v. State, 666 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Even though the officer claimed he saw the corner of a plastic baggie sticking out of Mr. Miyasato's pocket and knew marijuana was often carried in plastic baggies, these facts would give rise to, "at most, a mere suspicion" that it contained marijuana, which was not enough to seize it. See Harris, 352 So.2d at 1270.
The trial court recognized that the seizure of additional evidence from inside the desk was a close issue. At the time the deputies obtained consent to search this room from his mother, Mr. Miyasato was detained on the premises and had given no consent to search his desk. Because Mr. Miyasato was present at the time of this search, we question whether the deputies were authorized to obtain consent to search his room from his mother, at least upon the limited information the deputies received from the mother about her access and control over that room.3 For purposes of this opinion, however, we assume that Mr. Miyasato's mother could authorize a general search of his bedroom. We conclude that the deputies did not establish that she had sufficient authority to permit a consensual search of the contents of Mr. Miyasato's personal desk.
The record simply does not establish that the mother had actual or apparent authority to authorize a search of Mr. Miyasato's personal effects inside his desk. The police did not determine that she owned or used the desk or had regular access to its contents. Even if police had determined that Mrs. Miyasato regularly cleaned the desk drawer, it is questionable whether that would have been sufficient common authority to validate her consent to search it. See Silva v. State, 344 So.2d 559 (Fla.1977) ( ). Cf. Preston, 444 So.2d at 943 ( ).
In this case, there was no showing of any common authority over the desk that would diminish Mr. Miyasato's expectation of privacy in its contents. Thus, the mother's consent to search could not extend to the interior of his desk because of his reasonable expectation of privacy. Cf. O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 717-18, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987) ( ); Bateman v. State, 513 So.2d 1101, 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) ( ); United States v. Block, 590 F.2d 535 (4th Cir.1978) ( ); Holzhey v. United States, 223 F.2d 823 (5th Cir.1955) ( ); United States v. Blok, 188 F.2d 1019 (D.C.Cir. 1951) ( ); United States v. Butler, 495 F.Supp. 679 (E.D.Ark.1980) ( ); State v. Pinegar, 583 S.W.2d 217 (Mo.Ct.App.1979) ( ).
We caution that the adult child in this case was well beyond the age of majority and had established his own family unit, albeit a nontraditional one. In many respects, it is difficult to distinguish his bedroom from the type of independent living quarters that a family may provide for an older family member. If Mr. Miyasato had been an eighteen-year-old high school student who had not yet established independence from his family, the result might be different. We do not have to decide that question today.
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Mr. Miyasato's motion to suppress the contraband the deputies found in his desk drawer.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY OR WITHDRAW MANDATE
The State has filed a motion asking this court to stay the issuance of the mandate in this case while the State seeks further review in the Supreme Court of Florida. Although the State filed its motion to stay mandate more than fifteen days after this court denied the State's motion for rehearing, we grant the motion. We hold that the issuance of mandate in this case was not a ministerial act, and therefore this court has the discretion to withhold issuance of its mandate while the State seeks further review.
On March 7, 2001, this court issued an opinion in this case reversing the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence. State v. Miyasato, 805 So.2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In pertinent part, this court held that the State had not established that Mr. Miyasato's mother had actual or apparent authority to consent to the search of her adult son's personal desk in his bedroom in her home, particularly when the adult son was present and available to give his consent. On May 21, 2001, this court denied the State's motion for rehearing. This court had the authority to issue mandate on June 6, 2001, fifteen days after the denial of rehearing. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.340(b). We did not do so. No judge of this court internally ordered the clerk to stay mandate at any time prior to June 6, 2001.
On June 13, 2001, the State filed a motion to stay or recall our mandate in conjunction with its notice to invoke the supreme court's discretionary jurisdiction. The State asks this court to stay the issuance of the mandate because it is seeking review of the opinion in the Supreme Court of Florida and further proceedings in the trial court might render any further review moot. It is noteworthy that our opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Zamora
...narcotics in plastic bags. This was not sufficient to establish probable cause to open the medicine chest. See State v. Miyasato, 805 So.2d 818, 821 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001) ("Even though the officer claimed he saw the corner of a plastic baggie sticking out of [the defendant's] pocket and kn......
-
Vazquez v. Smith
...P. 9.120 advisory committee notes; see Banco Indus. de Venezuela, C.A. v. de Saad, 126 So. 3d 259 (Fla 3d DCA 2010) ; State v. Miyasato, 805 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ; 3 Fla. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 414 (2021). Accordingly, we deny the requested relief.Denied.1 No timely motion for ......
-
State v. Overton
...Moreover, a mandate ends the jurisdiction of the appellate court and returns full jurisdiction to the trial court. See State v. Miyasato, 805 So.2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). ...
-
Quilling v. Sec'y
...to end the jurisdiction of the appellate court and to return full jurisdiction of the case to the trial court. State v. Miyasato, 805 So. 2d 818, 824 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2001). Rule 9.340(a) of the Florida Rules of Procedure provides that "[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court or provided by th......
-
Computer search and seizure issues in Internet crimes against children cases.
...of minor would render parental authority to consent inoperative). (149.) See Falcon, 766 F.2d at 1474. See also State v. Miyasato, 805 So.2d 818, 820 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (consent given by mother of adult son to search drawers of desk in son's bedroom invalid without parent's establis......
-
Putting the brakes on litigation: stays pending review.
...act after expiration of the 15-day mandate period, notwithstanding pending review in the Florida Supreme Court). (35) State v. Miyasato, 805 So. 2d 818, 824 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2001) (noting that although motions to stay issuancs of mandate are common, there is no rule of procedure authorizing ......