State v. Detlefson, 335 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Detlefson, 335 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 7× by 6 distinct cases · …it cannot be said the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon.
37 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McLeod v. United States of America (alsd, 2024-09-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) McLeod v. United States of America
S.D. Ala. · 2024 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
it cannot be said the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Amy Koenig
Vt. · 2016 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
it cannot be said the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Lupek
N.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
it cannot be said the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) John Coffin v. Stacy Brandau (4×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
11th Cir. · 2011 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
it cannot be said the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Coffin v. Brandau (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
11th Cir. · 2011 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
it cannot be said the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Coffin v. Brandau (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
11th Cir. · 2011 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
it cannot be said the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Rabb
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
it cannot be said that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Rabb
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
it cannot be said that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SCOTT RUDOLPH v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Cf. Koehler v. State, 444 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (no expectation of privacy on unenclosed front porch which was exposed to public view); State v. Detlefson, 335 So. 2d 371, 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (no reasonable expectation of privacy on front porch of home where delivery men and others could observe the plants).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
For example, in State v. Detlefson, 335 So.2d 371, 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), the court held that a defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy on the front porch of a house because deliverymen and visitors would use the porch to reach the front door.
discussed Cited "see" Abella v. Simon
S.D. Fla. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Coffin, 642 F.3d at 1012 (“It cannot be said [that] the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon.”) (quoting Florida v. Detlefson, 335 So.2d 371, 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)); United States v. Bergin, 732 F.Supp.2d 1235, 1244 (M.D.Fla.2010) (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)).
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Richard Byron DETLEFSON, Appellee.
AA-321.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jul 27, 1976.
335 So. 2d 371
Smith.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.

[*372] Rudy Hernandez, Jacksonville, for appellee.

SMITH; Judge.

The State appeals from an order suppressing drugs and drug paraphernalia seized pursuant to a warrant held insufficient by Fourth Amendment standards. We reverse.

The affidavit on which the warrant was issued recited that patrolman Fouty had observed two marijuana plants on the front porch of the specified dwelling house on September 30, 1975, after observing the plants "on the porch at certain times and not visible at certain times" for approximately two weeks. His attention was initially called to the plants by an informant whose reliability was not demonstrated and is not here relied on by the State.[1] Patrolman Fouty's testimony revealed that he entered the yard and front porch of the premises on suspicion derived from the informant's tip and his own inconclusive identification from the street, and that he positively identified the growing marijuana only on approaching it closer.

The informer's tip provided patrolman Fouty with only a suspicion that the growing material on appellant's porch was marijuana. But that suspicion, coupled with his own observations, justified crossing the yard to look closer. The entry into the yard and onto the porch to identify suspected contraband plainly visible in less detail from the street did not violate Fourth Amendment standards. State v. Belcher, 317 So.2d 842 (Fla.App.2d, 1975); Boim v. State, 194 So.2d 313 (Fla.App.3d, 1967). It cannot be said the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon. E.g., People v. Bradley, 1 Cal.3d 80, 81 Cal. Rptr. 457, 460 P.2d 129 (1969). See also State v. Clarke, 242 So.2d 791 (Fla.App.4th, 1971), cert. den. 246 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1971). The officer's identification of the marijuana at close range, together with his prior observation that the plants so identified were periodically removed from and returned to the porch, supplied an adequate basis for the issuance of a warrant. Cf. Howell v. State, 333 So.2d 491 (Fla.App.1st, 1976).

REVERSED.

BOYER, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.

1 An affidavit otherwise sufficient is not tainted by reference to an inadequate tip by an informant. State v. Smith, 233 So.2d 396, 398 (Fla. 1970).