JOHN HERMAN BAUM, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for drug possession, holding that the search warrant's description of the premises (apartment number eight) was sufficiently particular despite ambiguity in the affidavit, applying a common-sense construction standard rather than hypertechnical analysis.
The description in a search warrant, not the affidavit, determines the place to be searched, and the warrant's identification of apartment number eight was sufficiently particular under a common-sense construction standard.
[1] The description in the search warrant itself, rather than the language in the supporting affidavit, determines the sufficiency of the place to be searched under the Fourt…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with possession of illegal narcotics after a search of apartment number eight in an apartment building; the affidavit supporting…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fourth Amendment Particularity Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
An appeal from a judgment of conviction for possession of illegal narcotics, entered after appellant had entered a plea of nolo, conditioned upon his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress which alleged that the affidavit attached to the search warrant failed to describe with particularity the place to be searched.
Although the description in the affidavit of the premises to be searched was color-ably ambiguous, the premises (apartment number eight in a certain apartment building) were nevertheless sufficiently described in the search warrant. Additionally, the search warrant did not incorporate the description in the affidavit by reference. It has been held that it is the description in a search warrant, not the language in the affidavit, which determines the place to be searched. Booze v. State, 291 So. 2d 262 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); United States v. Kaye, 432 F. 2d 647. (D.C. Cir. 1970).
Following the advice of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Ventresea, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965), that courts should not apply hypertechnical constructions to warrants, but should rather construe them in a com mon sense fashion, we agree that the allegations in both the affidavit and the search warrant support the trial court’s implicit finding that the informer purchased the drugs only in apartment number eight. See also State v. Heape, 369 So. 2d 386 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), and State v. Houser, 364 So. 2d 823 (Fla.2d DCA 1978).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, SHAW and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Lomack, 732 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…So. 2d 250 (Fla.1984), Swain v. State, 670 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), Clapsaddle v. State, 545 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), State v. Gallo, 279 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), Carr v. State, 529 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and Baum v. State, 404 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), or, alternatively, on the authority of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1965)
- Booze v. State, 291 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- State v. Heape, 369 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Tallbear v. State, 369 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- United States v. Kaye (D.D.C. 1970)
- State v. Houser, 364 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)