STATE v. BOSTICK (1999)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,First District.

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Joseph BOSTICK, Appellee.

No. 99-479.

Decided: November 22, 1999

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Daniel A. David, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender and Ward L. Metzger, Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

The state appeals an order suppressing cocaine and a handgun from the an automobile driven by the defendant, Joseph Bostick. We reverse. The defendant lacked standing to challenge the seizure of these items of evidence from the car, because the car was stolen. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); State v. Singleton, 595 So.2d 44 (Fla.1992). The defendant contends that ownership of the car was established only by the officer's radio check of the vehicle identification number, and that the state failed to present any nonhearsay evidence that the car had been stolen. This argument incorrectly reverses the burden of proof. A defendant who moves to suppress evidence on the ground that it was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment has the burden of establishing that he or she has standing to object to the seizure. See Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960); see generally, Rakas; Singleton.

Reversed.

PER CURIAM.

ERVIN, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network