JOHN MILTON OWENS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
John Owens appealed his conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and probation revocation, challenging both his standing as a probationer to contest allegedly unlawful searches and whether probable cause existed for the search. The court held that probationers retain Fourth Amendment protections in criminal trials, but affirmed the conviction because the search was constitutional and supported by probable cause.
A probationer does not forfeit Fourth Amendment protections and has standing to challenge allegedly unlawful searches in a criminal trial, though evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be admissible in probation revocation hearings. However, the denial of the suppression motion was proper because the search was constitutional and supported by probable cause.
[1] A probationer does not forfeit Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures solely by virtue of their probationary status.
[2] Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be admissible in a probation revocation hearing but not in a criminal trial.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A defendant does not absolutely forfeit the protection of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures merely by assuming the status of a probationer; and while evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be admissible against the probationer in a revocation hearing, such evidence cannot constitutionally be admitted at a criminal trial.”
Establishes that probationers retain Fourth Amendment rights in criminal proceedings, though with a different standard applying in revocation hearings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Owens, a probationer, was charged with carrying a concealed firearm following a search and seizure. At trial, Owens moved to suppress the evidenc…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Carrying A Concealed Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Owens appeals a judgment of conviction entered after a non-jury trial on the charge of carrying a concealed firearm, and an order of revocation of probation. He was sentenced to two concurrent one-year terms of imprisonment. Two issues are presented on this appeal. The first is whether a probationer has standing to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained as the result of an allegedly unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The second issue is whether there was probable cause for the search and seizure.
The record contains testimony as to the entire incident, including the officer’s probable cause and the details of the search itself. The trial judge refused to hear argument on the defendant’s motion to suppress, stating on the record that as a probationer, the defendant had no standing to challenge the allegedly unlawful search and seizure. We do not agree. A defendant does not absolutely forfeit the protection of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures merely by assuming the status of a probationer; and while evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be admissible against the probationer in a revocation hearing, such evidence cannot constitutionally be admitted at a criminal trial. Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577, 579 (Fla.1976). Therefore, the trial judge should not have refused to hear the motion to suppress at the criminal trial solely on the basis of the defendant’s status as a probationer. However, the denial óf the motion to suppress was proper on another ground.
Generally, if a trial judge’s order, judgment or decree is sustainable under any theory revealed by the record on appeal, notwithstanding that it may have been bottomed on an erroneous theory, an erroneous reason or an erroneous ground, the order, judgment or decree will be affirmed. Savage v. State, 156 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). While the trial court should have allowed argument on the motion to suppress, it was not error to deny the motion as the search was proper under the Fourth Amendment, and was bottomed on probable cause. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, - U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331, opinion filed December 5,1977.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977)
- Savage v. State, 156 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1976)