Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2006 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. United Statesred2 sentences1988In Salvucci , the United States Supreme Court rejected the automatic standing rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), cert. dismissed, 368 U.S. 801 , 82 S.Ct. 20 , 7 L.Ed.2d 15 (1961). [2] Instead, the Court held that "we must instead engage in a `conscientious effort to apply the Fourth Amendment' by asking not merely whether the defendant had a possessory interest in the items seized, but whether he had an expectation of privacy in the area searched." 448 U.S. at 93 , 100 S.Ct. at 2553 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 629 . 1988In Salvucci , the United States Supreme Court rejected the automatic standing rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), cert. dismissed, 368 U.S. 801 , 82 S.Ct. 20 , 7 L.Ed.2d 15 (1961). [2] Instead, the Court held that "we must instead engage in a `conscientious effort to apply the Fourth Amendment' by asking not merely whether the defendant had a possessory interest in the items seized, but whether he had an expectation of privacy in the area searched." 448 U.S. at 93 , 100 S.Ct. at 2553 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 629 . | 1 | 7 |
State v. Loefflergreen1 sentence2006In State v. Hutchinson, 404 So.2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and State v. Loeffler, 410 So.2d 589, 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), this court found that Salvucci was controlling and rejected the automatic standing rule. | 1 | 1 |
Shafi v. Stategreen1 sentence1980See also Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972). [5] In Shafi v. State, 377 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the court cites Jones as having expanded the scope of standing, but does not mention that Shafi's standing derives from the automatic standing rule. | 1 | 1 |
Lego v. Twomeygreen2 sentences1980See also Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972). [5] In Shafi v. State, 377 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the court cites Jones as having expanded the scope of standing, but does not mention that Shafi's standing derives from the automatic standing rule. 1980See also Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972). [5] In Shafi v. State, 377 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the court cites Jones as having expanded the scope of standing, but does not mention that Shafi's standing derives from the automatic standing rule. | 1 | 1 |
Rakas v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1980See Rakas v. Illinois, supra, 439 U.S. [128] at 135 n. 4, 99 S.Ct. 421 [at 426 n. 4, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 ]; Brown v. United States, supra, 411 U.S. [223] at 228, 229, 93 S.Ct. 1565 [at 1568, 1569, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 ], Since the Supreme Court first questioned the vitality of this doctrine in Brown , there has been a split of authority as to whether the doctrine survives. 1980See Rakas v. Illinois, supra, 439 U.S. [128] at 135 n. 4, 99 S.Ct. 421 [at 426 n. 4, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 ]; Brown v. United States, supra, 411 U.S. [223] at 228, 229, 93 S.Ct. 1565 [at 1568, 1569, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 ], Since the Supreme Court first questioned the vitality of this doctrine in Brown , there has been a split of authority as to whether the doctrine survives. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Salvucci
green
2 sentences2006Washington noted that the United States Supreme Court had abandoned the automatic standing rule in United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980), but the Washington Supreme Court had repeatedly affirmed the rule's validity. 2006Washington noted that the United States Supreme Court had abandoned the automatic standing rule in United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980), but the Washington Supreme Court had repeatedly affirmed the rule's validity. | 7 | 1981–2006 |
Norman v. State
green
2 sentences1981We accept the reasoning of our sister court in Norman v. State, 388 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) that the automatic standing rule has not become a part of this state’s law in order to survive the overruling of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960) by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980) and Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980). 1981The automatic standing rule has been abolished by both the United States Supreme Court in U. S. v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980) and in Florida in Norman v. State, 388 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). | 3 | 1981–1981 |
United States v. John M. Salvucci, Jr., Joseph G. Zackular
green
2 sentences1981Relying upon Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), and United States v. Salvucci, 599 F.2d 1094 (1st Cir. 1979), holding that the automatic standing rule announced in Jones was still the law, the district court held that the defendants in this case had automatic standing to challenge the legality of the searches and seizures, and it reversed the trial court’s findings in this regard. 1980In United States v. Salvucci, 599 F.2d 1094 (1st Cir. 1979), the court held that the following automatic standing rule, extrapolated from Jones , is still the law: [A] defendant [charged with an offense] has automatic standing to challenge the legality of a search or seizure if charged with a crime that includes, as an essential element of the offense charged, possession of the seized evidence at the time of the contested search and seizure. 559 F.2d at 1097. | 2 | 1980–1981 |
State v. Hutchinson
green
1 sentence2006In State v. Hutchinson, 404 So.2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and State v. Loeffler, 410 So.2d 589, 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), this court found that Salvucci was controlling and rejected the automatic standing rule. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Antipas v. United States
green
1 sentence1988In Salvucci , the United States Supreme Court rejected the automatic standing rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), cert. dismissed, 368 U.S. 801 , 82 S.Ct. 20 , 7 L.Ed.2d 15 (1961). [2] Instead, the Court held that "we must instead engage in a `conscientious effort to apply the Fourth Amendment' by asking not merely whether the defendant had a possessory interest in the items seized, but whether he had an expectation of privacy in the area searched." 448 U.S. at 93 , 100 S.Ct. at 2553 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 629 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
King v. State
green
1 sentence1982E.g., King v. State, 371 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 349 (Fla.1979). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Rawlings v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences1981We accept the reasoning of our sister court in Norman v. State, 388 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) that the automatic standing rule has not become a part of this state’s law in order to survive the overruling of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960) by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980) and Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980). 1981We accept the reasoning of our sister court in Norman v. State, 388 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) that the automatic standing rule has not become a part of this state’s law in order to survive the overruling of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960) by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980) and Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1980Our course would be clear had the exclusionary rule laid down in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), been the victim of Salvucci . 1980Our course would be clear had the exclusionary rule laid down in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), been the victim of Salvucci . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Brown v. United States
green
2 sentences1980See Rakas v. Illinois, supra, 439 U.S. [128] at 135 n. 4, 99 S.Ct. 421 [at 426 n. 4, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 ]; Brown v. United States, supra, 411 U.S. [223] at 228, 229, 93 S.Ct. 1565 [at 1568, 1569, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 ], Since the Supreme Court first questioned the vitality of this doctrine in Brown , there has been a split of authority as to whether the doctrine survives. 1980See Rakas v. Illinois, supra, 439 U.S. [128] at 135 n. 4, 99 S.Ct. 421 [at 426 n. 4, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 ]; Brown v. United States, supra, 411 U.S. [223] at 228, 229, 93 S.Ct. 1565 [at 1568, 1569, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 ], Since the Supreme Court first questioned the vitality of this doctrine in Brown , there has been a split of authority as to whether the doctrine survives. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.