Case Name: Vincent NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-06-28
Citations: 546 So. 2d 49
Docket Number: No. 88-0855
Parties: Vincent NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GUNTHER, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 546
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
Vincent NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 88-0855.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 28, 1989.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Patricia G. Lampert, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
GARRETT, Judge.
In the early morning hours of April Fool's Day, 1987, appellant sat behind the driver's wheel alone in a car backed in the driveway of a house to which he had no connection. As a West Palm Beach police officer approached, appellant started the car to pull out onto the street. The officer blocked the car with his police cruiser forcing appellant to stop in the driveway. The officer learned from the police dispatcher that the car was stolen. Appellant was arrested and charged with Grand Theft. Appellant entered a no contest plea reserving the right to appeal the trial judge finding appellant lacked standing to object to the stopping of the stolen car.
The stop neither occurred randomly nor as a pretext. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979); Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 1988). A rightful owner of a legally titled and registered car has a limited expectation of privacy. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). A driver of a stolen car has no expectation of privacy. United States v. Hargrove, 647 F.2d 411 (4th Cir.1981). Society does not recognize any right to operate a stolen car.
If the driver of a stolen car does not have standing to object to a search of the car, then the driver of a stolen car does not have standing to object to a seizure of the car. Hargrove. "Things" placed in a stolen car by a driver are not afforded Fourth Amendment protection, therefore a driver is not afforded Fourth Amendment protection when he "places" himself in a stolen car. Cf Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977).
We affirm the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress. Since appellant had no right to start the car, he had no right to object to its stop.
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER, J., concurs.
STONE, J., dissents with opinion.