From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diaz-Fonseca v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 25, 1986
483 So. 2d 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Opinion

No. 85-1003.

February 25, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Robert H. Newman, J.

Entin, Schwartz, Dion, Sclafani Cullen and Ronald Dion, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.


The trial court denied Diaz-Fonseca a full evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress based upon a finding that he did not have standing to challenge the search because he had denied ownership of the luggage. We reverse for a full evidentiary hearing upon the authority of Shafi v. State, 377 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See also United States v. Richards, 638 F.2d 765 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097, 102 S.Ct. 669, 70 L.Ed.2d 638 (1981). Diaz-Fonseca claimed that the bag belonged to his uncle. In addition, he was in possession of claim tickets for the bag. He clearly had a sufficient possessory and custodial interest in the bag to have established standing to object to its search and seizure.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Diaz-Fonseca v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 25, 1986
483 So. 2d 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
Case details for

Diaz-Fonseca v. State

Case Details

Full title:EDUARDO ANTONIO DIAZ-FONSECA, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Feb 25, 1986

Citations

483 So. 2d 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

State v. Rodriguez

In such an instance, standing to challenge the search exists as a matter of law. Diaz-Fonseca v. State, 483…

Acosta v. State

The appellant was in exclusive possession of the vehicle and produced valid registration papers, disclosing…