Davis v. State
226 So. 3d 318
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Davis lived in a rooming house, had a key, kept belongings there, and paid rent to his brother; sometimes stayed elsewhere.
- Officer Acri, on an unrelated call, observed Davis place an opaque pill bottle into concrete latticework covering the house foundation, then picked up a bike and walked away.
- Acri stopped and handcuffed Davis, then reached through the yard into the latticework, removed the pill bottle, opened it, and found cocaine; Acri had no warrant, consent, or clear exigency.
- Davis moved to suppress the pill bottle and its contents; the trial court found Davis had standing but concluded he abandoned the bottle by placing it in a non-privileged area and denied suppression.
- The appellate court agreed Davis had standing but held the latticework and crawlspace were part of the dwelling’s constitutionally protected area, so Acri’s warrantless seizure was unlawful.
- Because the pill bottle was seized without a warrant or applicable exception, the court reversed and ordered discharge on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge seizure | Davis abandoned the bottle; no ownership/standing | Davis retained an expectation of privacy in property he placed at the residence | Court: Davis had standing; trial court correctly found standing |
| Whether latticework/crawlspace is constitutionally protected | Latticework was outside protected area; abandonment valid | Latticework attached to foundation is part of dwelling/structure (protected) | Court: Latticework and crawlspace are part of the home and protected |
| Validity of seizure under plain view/open view or other warrant exceptions | Officer could seize for safety/public-policy (open view) or exigency (prevent children access) | Officer had only a hunch; no plain/open view of contraband, no consent, no exigency, no hot pursuit, no lawful arrest basis | Court: No warrant, no plain/open view of contraband, and no applicable exception; seizure unlawful |
| Remedy after erroneous denial of suppression | Maintain conviction | Suppression required; conviction should be reversed | Court: Reverse conviction and remand for discharge |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fosmire, 135 So. 3d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (abandonment/disclaimer defeats standing)
- K.W. v. State, 183 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (standing and abandonment principles)
- Mori v. State, 662 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (disclaimer of ownership removes expectation of privacy)
- State v. Daniels, 576 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (no standing where defendant disavows property)
- State v. Oliver, 368 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (abandonment only when property discarded in non-protected area)
- State v. Titus, 707 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1998) (rooming house residents retain Fourth Amendment protections; interior areas are private)
- State v. Rickard, 420 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1982) (distinguishing Coolidge plain view doctrine from other "open view" situations)
- Jacoby v. State, 851 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (discharge remedy where dispositive suppression reversal requires dismissal)