HENRY L. STRONG, Appellant,
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, James R. Clayton,
S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Kevin R. Holtz, Assistant
Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson
Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Strong appeals the denial of his motion to suppress and
convictions of robbery with a firearm, possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, and driving without a valid
driver's license. We affirm.
enforcement received a tip that Strong planned to rob a
McDonald's using the informant's vehicle. The
informant rented a car, solely in her name, and allowed law
enforcement to attach a GPS tracking device to the vehicle.
Strong borrowed the rental car, and law enforcement tracked
Strong's movements via the GPS. The GPS tracking
information placed Strong near a McDonald's in Volusia
County, and shortly after, law enforcement received a 9-1-1
call reporting a robbery at that McDonald's. Law
enforcement pulled Strong over, arrested him, and searched
the rental car.
Strong moved to suppress all evidence obtained in the rental
car. In a renewed motion, Strong also moved to suppress all
evidence obtained with the GPS. The trial court denied
Strong's motions, finding that he lacked standing to
challenge law enforcement's stop and search of the rental
car and tracking of his movements because he was not listed
on the rental agreement.
appeal, Strong argues that the trial court erred in denying
his motions to suppress evidence related to the stop and
search of the rental car.
time of his motion to suppress hearing, the trial court did
not have the benefit of the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Byrd v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1518
(2018). In Byrd, the Supreme Court held that
"the mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or
control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement
will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation
of privacy." Id. at 1531. In light of
Byrd, we hold that the trial court erroneously
concluded that Strong did not have a reasonable expectation
of privacy in the rental car because he was not listed on the
rental agreement. See id.
we affirm the denial of Strong's motion to suppress and
subsequent convictions. The evidence presented at the
suppression hearing reflects that law enforcement had
probable cause to stop Strong and search the rental car based
on the informant's tip, Strong's location,
the 9-1-1 call. See State v. McIntosh, 116 So.3d
582, 584-85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (finding probable cause for
search existed based on evidence presented at motion to
EDWARDS and ...