Full Opinion

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-1184 ) RICARDO L. FERNANDEZ, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed January 6, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin- Schomaker, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Daniel Muller, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. The State appeals the trial court's order granting Ricardo Fernandez's motion to suppress after the trial court found the affidavit used to obtain the anticipatory search warrant was deficient and the good faith exception to the warrant requirement did not apply. We affirm the trial court's order to the extent it provides the search and seizure was illegal based upon the deficient warrant without comment. However, because the issue of Mr. Fernandez's standing to challenge the invalid warrant was not addressed below,1 we reverse and remand for a new suppression hearing at which the trial court shall address the sole issue of standing. If the trial court finds Mr. Fernandez establishes his standing to challenge the invalid warrant, then the motion to suppress should be granted. See McCauley v. State, 842 So. 2d 897, 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Reversed and remanded. KELLY, MORRIS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur. 1We note that the State did not raise any argument related to Mr. Fernandez's standing to challenge the invalid warrant below; however, this court has held that the State is permitted to raise a lack of standing, in the Fourth Amendment context, for the first time on appeal. See State v. Pettis, 266 So. 3d 238, 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Hendley v. State, 58 So. 3d 296, 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); State v. Fernandez, 36 So. 3d 120, 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Murphy v. State, 32 So. 3d 122, 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); McCauley v. State, 842 So. 2d 897, 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We are bound by these decisions. See Lee v. Estate of Payne, 148 So. 3d 776, 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("We are constrained by precedent unless changed by the supreme court."); Gulf Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Singleton, 265 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (acknowledging "stare decisis demands that we adhere to our ruling on identical facts" in prior cases). -2-