FL4: Two men entering bathroom stall apparently to do drugs did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy

When two men enter a restroom stall together, here to do drugs, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and officers could look over the partition. State v. Powers, 991 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 2008):

Clearly, a person in a closed stall in a public restroom is entitled to be free from unwarranted intrusion. E.g. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967). However, this expectation gives way where two persons enter a stall together under circumstances reasonably indicating that they are doing drugs. See State v. Orta, 2003 WI App 93, 264 Wis. 2d 765, 663 N.W.2d 358, 362 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003); State v. Tanner, 42 Ohio App. 3d 196, 537 N.E.2d 702, 705 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988); Manning v. State, 957 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Lee v. State, 868 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Defendant’s supervised release condition under Adam Walsh Act of 2006 for searches on reasonable suspicion was, of course, constitutional. United States v. Rosenthal, 295 Fed. Appx. 985 (11th Cir. 2008)* (unpublished).

Defendant abandoned a satchel while fleeing, and in it was a gun. United States v. Johnson, 295 Fed. Appx. 342 (11th Cir. October 3, 2008)* (unpublished).