The State of Florida vs. Dominic Harris

The State appeals the trial court’s order suppressing evidence seized in a

warrantless search of Dominic Harris’s property. After conducting an evidentiary

hearing, the trial court determined that Mr. Harris had not abandoned his privacy

interest in the subject property. This Court’s review of the suppression order

involves a mixed question of law and fact; the trial court’s factual findings are

presumed correct if supported by competent, substantial evidence, while we

review, de novo, the trial court’s ruling on the legality of the search. See State v.

Milewski, 194 So. 3d 376, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “[A] trial court’s ruling on a

motion to suppress comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of

correctness, and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and reasonable

inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to

sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 806 (Fla. 2002).

With this standard in mind, we affirm the trial court’s determination that Mr.

Harris had not abandoned his reasonable expectation of privacy in his property

when it was seized and searched by the police.



Affirmed.