Wylie v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. In re C.P

    274 Ga. 599 (Ga. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    However, a stall in a public restroom is not a private place when it is used for other than its intended purpose. See Elmore v. Atlantic Zayre, 178 Ga. App. 25 ( 341 S.E.2d 905) (1986) (no invasion of privacy when store's bathroom stall was used for sexual activity); Wylie v. State, 164 Ga. App. 174 ( 296 S.E.2d 743) (1982) (no reasonable expectation of privacy when two persons occupy a stall facing each other without speaking for a period of time). Compare Snider v. State, 238 Ga. App. 55 ( 515 S.E.2d 569) (1999), and Kelley v. State, 233 Ga. App. 244 (2) ( 503 S.E.2d 881) (1998) (16-year-old girl has a reasonable expectation of privacy when nude in the family home's bathroom in the act of or following bathing).

  2. Johnson v. Allen

    272 Ga. App. 861 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 28 times
    Finding that continuous observation of private matters occurring in a restroom would constitute an invasion of privacy, even if a stall in a public restroom would not be considered a private place when used for other than its intended purpose

    See Wylie v. State.Wylie v. State, 164 Ga. App. 174 ( 296 SE2d 743) (1982). However, the law recognizes that the right of privacy is not absolute. . . . [I]t . . . must be kept within its proper limits, and in its exercise must be made to accord with the rights of those who have other liberties, as well as the rights of any person who may be properly interested in the matters which are claimed to be of purely private concern.

  3. State v. Tanner

    42 Ohio App. 3d 196 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 10 times
    In Tanner, the Ohio court concluded that the police officer was entitled to look into the toilet stall when he saw "two pairs of legs in the stall and heard sniffling sounds."

    Id. at 858. In Wylie v. State (1982), 164 Ga. App. 174, 296 S.E.2d 743, a police officer entered the restroom to use the facility but the single commode stall was occupied. When he noticed two pairs of feet in the stall, the police officer looked through a crack in the door and saw two men ingesting a white powder later identified as cocaine.

  4. Elmore v. Atlantic Zayre, Inc.

    178 Ga. App. 25 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing store's interest in crime-free restroom

    An individual clearly has an interest in privacy within a toilet stall. See Wylie v. State, 164 Ga. App. 174 ( 296 S.E.2d 743) (1982). "However, the law recognizes that the right of privacy is not absolute. . . . `But it [right of privacy] must be kept within its proper limits, and in its exercise must be made to accord with the rights of those who have other liberties, as well as the rights of any person who may be properly interested in the matters which are claimed to be of purely privateconcern.' [ Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190, 201 ( 50 S.E. 68) (1905).

  5. J.C. v. State

    988 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

    "When a police officer who is in a public area observes two people using the same restroom stall, and apparently not using the stall for its intended purpose, then these observations may permit the police officer to take further reasonable steps to investigate." Barron v. State, 823 P.2d 17, 20 (Alaska Ct.App. 1992); see People v. Mercado, 68 N.Y.2d 874, 508 N.Y.S.2d 419, 501 N.E.2d 27, 29-30 (1986) (investigation by officer was permissible where officer "ascertained that two men were using a single toilet stall in a manner that indicated to him that the stall was not being used for its intended purpose."); Wylie v. State, 164 Ga.App. 174, 296 S.E.2d 743, 744 (1982) (investigation permissible where "the officer's suspicions were alerted by the fact that there were apparently two men in the stall facing each other, without speaking, for a period of time."). Affirmed.

  6. State v. Orta

    2003 WI App. 93 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 12 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Orta the officer entered a public restroom that had four stalls and observed two individuals in one of the stalls: he could see the tops of their heads and their feet and he-determined they were adults.

    Id. at 70.See alsoWylie v. State, 296 S.E.2d 743, 743-44 (Ga.Ct.App. 1982) (the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he occupied a single commode stall with another individual with their feet facing each other; when two individuals enter the stall, neither of whom appears to be an invalid or handicapped as to require assistance, the immediate surveillance of the stall, without the delay incident to a warrant, appears to pass constitutional muster); Barron v. State, 823 P.2d 17, 20 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992) ("[T]he cases suggest that when one is in a public restroom, a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy which society is prepared to recognize. However, that expectation of privacy is limited by the fact that the restroom is in a public area and one's behavior is subject to the observation of others who are in the public area.

  7. State v. Limberhand

    117 Idaho 456 (Idaho Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 9 times
    In State v. Limberhand, 117 Idaho 456, 788 P.2d 857 (Ct.App. 1990), the defendant was arrested for obscene conduct after an officer observed him, through a four-inch hole in a stall partition, masturbating in a public restroom.

    The state correctly points out that the reasonableness of such an expectation depends on the facts of each case. Wylie v. State, 164 Ga. App. 174, 296 S.E.2d 743 (1982). It appears that many jurisdictions have ruled on an individual's privacy expectations in public restroom stalls.