JAQUELINE LYNN ASHTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1987-12-02
No. 86-1332
SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
516 So. 2d 55 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1987)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

A passenger in a vehicle cannot challenge a search of the vehicle on Fourth Amendment grounds if they have no property or possessory interest in the vehicle or the property seized, and no legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched area.


Facts & Procedural History

Police stopped a vehicle in which the appellant was a passenger and searched the area under the front seat, finding cocaine. The appellant argued the …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
DANAHY, Chief Judge.

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine and filed a motion to suppress the evidence against her. After denial of that motion, the appellant pled no contest to the charge, reserving the right to appeal the suppression issue. We affirm.

Police officers obtained the evidence in question when they stopped a vehicle in which the appellant was riding as a passenger and searched the area under the front seat. The appellant concedes that the stop of the vehicle was a lawful Terry stop,1 but argues that the police officers did not have probable cause to search the vehicle. The appellant has asserted no property or possessory interest in the vehicle nor an interest in the property seized. She has failed to show any legitimate expectation of privacy in the area of the vehicle which was searched. Under these circumstances, she is not entitled to challenge the search on fourth amendment grounds. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress.

SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur. . Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); § 901.151, Fla.Stat. (1985).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw