STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD HERBERT BROOKER, 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.
The court held that a search warrant's description of the property to be searched must identify the place to the exclusion of all others and unerringly lead officers to it.
The State appealed an order suppressing evidence based on a search warrant's description of the property. The warrant contained two inaccuracies: it f…
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 Particularity Requirement For Search Warrants cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The State appeals from the trial court’s order granting Brooker’s motion to suppress. The trial court found the description of the property to be searched contained in the search warrant fatally defective. We affirm.
The description in the warrant provided directions to the property to be searched located in rural Gilchrist County. But, the description contained two inaccuracies.
First, the warrant failed to describe a U-shaped bend in one of the unnamed dirt roads described in the warrant as leading to the property to be searched. At this bend, another dirt road, not mentioned in the warrant, meets the one described in the warrant.
Second, the warrant described Brooker’s house, located on the property to be searched, as a brick house. Although there is a brick house approximately V-i mile from Brooker’s house, Brooker’s house is wooden.
In a search warrant, the description of the place to be searched must identify the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others and on inquiry lead the searching officers unerringly to it. Shedd v. State, 358 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Here, the description in the search warrant failed this test because -of the inaccuracies it contained.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Nelson, 542 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…rches and seizures at a location not intended by the search warrant, thus safeguarding the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. Jackson v. State, 87 Fla. 262, 99 So. 548 (1924); State v. Brooker, 449 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (the description of the place to be searched must identify the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others and on inquiry lead the officers unerringly to it); Shedd v. State, 358 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (a s…
-
State v. Leveque, 530 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…location. See United States v. Ofshe, 817 F. 2d 1508 (11th Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 451, 98 L.Ed.2d 391 (1987); Jackson v. State, 87 Fla. 262, 99 So. 548 (1924); State v. Palmer, 474 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); State v. Brooker, 449 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Shedd v. State, 358 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). A warrant is sufficient if the description is such that the officer can, with a reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the intended location for the search. Steele v. Unite…
Authorities Cited
- Deland State Bank v. BIG Muddy Corp., 358 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)