JOSEPH JOHN WINTEMBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Joseph Wintemberg appealed his arrest, arguing that the deputy sheriff who arrested him during execution of a search warrant lacked proper authority because he had not been individually bonded as required by law. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the arrest, holding that the deputy was properly covered under a blanket bond authorized by statute and approved by the county commission.
The deputy sheriff was properly authorized to execute the warrant and make the arrest. The provisions of Section 30.09(1)(b) authorizing county commissions to accept blanket bonds were complied with, making the arrest valid.
[1] A deputy sheriff's arrest is valid if made pursuant to a properly executed search warrant, even if the arresting officer is not from the local jurisdiction.
[2] A county commission's approval of a blanket surety bond for deputy sheriffs satisfies statutory requirements for deputy qualification.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In 1975 the Legislature enacted subsection (l)(b) which, for the first time, authorized County Commissions to accept blanket bonds. The purpose of such an amendment would seem to obviate the necessity of the Commission's approving on an individual basis each $1,000 bond.”
Explains the legislative purpose behind authorizing blanket bonds, supporting the validity of Ewart's coverage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWintemberg was arrested during execution of a search warrant at premises in Lauderdale Lakes by ten law enforcement officers, only one of whom (a Brow…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
Appellant was arrested during the execution of a search warrant at premises located in the City of Lauderdale Lakes. Ten law enforcement officers were involved in the execution of the warrant, but none of them were Lauderdale Lakes officers. The only one of the ten with possible authority to make an arrest in the particular jurisdiction was a Broward County deputy sheriff. However, appellant contends even the deputy sheriff was unauthorized because he had not been properly bonded pursuant to Section 30.09, Florida Statutes (1977)1 in that the County Commission of Broward County had not approved the deputy’s bond.
It appears that the Sheriff of Broward County administered the appropriate Oath to Deputy Ewart on February 26,1977, and the surety on the Sheriff’s blanket bond accepted coverage on Ewart effective March 1, 1977. Prior thereto the Sheriff had procured a blanket bond from Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland to cover all of his deputies. At the time the bond was sent to the County Commission for approval a list of the names of all of the Sheriff’s deputies was attached. The County Commission approved the bond. From time to time as new deputies are employed, if approved by the surety, they are then included within the coverage of the bond, which bond has already been approved by the County Commission.
As initially enacted Section 30.09(l)(a) required individual bonds for each deputy to be approved by the County Commission. In 1975 the Legislature enacted subsection (l)(b) which, for the first time, authorized County Commissions to accept blanket bonds. The purpose of such an amendment would seem to obviate the necessity of the Commission’s approving on an individual basis each $1,000 bond. In our opinion the provisions of Section 30.09(l)(b) were complied with vis-a-vis deputy Ewart and thus his presence and participation in the execution of the warrant in question was sufficient to make the arrest valid.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur. . 30.09 Qualification of deputies; special deputies.—
(1) BOND, SURETIES, PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES.—
(a) Each deputy sheriff, appointed as aforesaid, shall be required to give bond in the penal sum of $1,000, payable to the governor of Florida and his successors in office, with two or more good and sufficient sureties, to be approved by the board of county commissioners and filed with the clerk of the circuit court, which bond shall be conditioned upon the faithful performance of the duties of his office. No deputy sheriff shall be allowed to perform any services as such deputy until he shall subscribe to the oath now prescribed for sheriffs and until the approval of his bond. The aforesaid sureties shall be liable for all fines and amercements imposed upon their principal.
(b) The board of county commissioners of any county is authorized to accept a blanket surety bond issued by a solvent surety company authorized to do business in this state, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the duties of the deputy sheriffs appointed by a sheriff, in the penal sum of not less than $1,000 payable to the Governor and his successors in office. If such a blanket surety bond shall be accepted, individual surety bonds for each deputy sheriff shall no longer be necessary. The cost of the blanket bond shall be borne by the appropriate sheriffs department. The aforesaid sureties shall be liable for all fines and amercements imposed upon their principals under the provisions of the blanket bond.