255 So. 3d 478
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Duke reported a vehicle burglary in which several USB drives were allegedly stolen; the police report did not list the USB drives.
- Hampton was arrested on unrelated charges, consented to a home search, and led officers to hidden USB drives, saying they contained “some sick shit” and that he got them in exchange for drugs.
- Officers inserted an unpassworded USB into a police computer, opened one video (appearing to depict sexual battery), then turned the drives over to a Sex Crimes detective.
- Hampton later signed a written consent authorizing the detective to search all the USB drives; further analysis identified Duke in the video, leading to an arrest warrant and discovery of a firearm in Duke’s vehicle.
- Duke moved to suppress, arguing the officers’ review of the USB contents was an unlawful Fourth Amendment search because the drives were stolen and Hampton lacked authority to consent; the trial court denied the motion and Duke reserved appeal after pleading no contest to felon-in-possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Duke) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ initial opening/viewing of a video on a recovered USB drive was a Fourth Amendment search | Officers opened and viewed stolen drives without Duke’s consent; Duke retained a reasonable expectation of privacy | No Fourth Amendment search occurred because a private party (Hampton) already viewed the contents and led officers to the file | No Fourth Amendment search; court concluded officers did not infringe a protected expectation when they viewed the single file |
| If a search occurred, whether it was lawful without a warrant | Hampton lacked authority to let police search stolen property; consent invalid | Search was lawful because Hampton consented and officers reasonably relied on his apparent authority | Even if a search, it was lawful: consent (and apparent authority) justified officers’ review and subsequent searches |
| Whether evidence from the drives (leading to the firearm) must be suppressed | Evidence tainted by unlawful search; arrest and firearm seizure inadmissible | Evidence admissible because initial viewing/search lawful or within private-party exception; later searches based on written consent | Motion to suppress properly denied; conviction and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (private-party search does not implicate Fourth Amendment unless government exceeds scope)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (police may rely on third party’s apparent authority to consent if belief is reasonable)
- Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (defendant bears burden to show a Fourth Amendment search occurred)
- State v. Markus, 211 So. 3d 894 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Purifoy, 740 So. 2d 29 (consent is an exception to warrant requirement)
- State v. Young, 974 So. 2d 601 (apparent authority analysis under Rodriguez applied in Florida)
- Kilburn v. State, 54 So. 3d 625 (party asserting exception must be met by State)
- Armstrong v. State, 46 So. 3d 589 (burden on defendant to show a Fourth Amendment search occurred)
- Ingram v. State, 928 So. 2d 423 (reviewing court views evidence in light most favorable to affirming suppression ruling)