STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES NEAL MARTIN AND JANET CAROLINE MARTIN, APPELLEES
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 affidavit must particularly describe the place to be searched, and an affidavit lacking this specificity is insufficient.
Drugs were seized from the Martins' residence pursuant to a search warrant. The affidavit for the warrant failed to specifically describe the location…
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 Florida Constitution Article I, Section 12 cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Chief Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s order suppressing evidence seized in this case. Large quantities of drugs, money, and drug paraphernalia were confiscated from the Martins’ residence in Seminole County, Florida. Both James and Janet Martin were in their residence during the search and were arrested at that time. The state appeals the suppression order. Fla.R.App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(B).
The affidavit for search warrant was sufficiently complete and adequately demonstrated probable cause for the search in all respects, save one. It failed to describe the location of the property or specifically denote the residence to be searched. The sole reference in the affidavit to the place to be searched is to a “residence in Seminole County” where the affiant saw the Martins, and effected a buy of cocaine through another person. Obviously this was an oversight on the policeman’s part. The affidavit speaks of the “aforementioned residence” and the “previously described” residence but fails to pinpoint its location, or identify whose residence it was.
An affidavit for a search warrant must be sufficient on its face. Younger v. State, 433 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 440 So. 2d 354 (Fla.1983). The description of the place to be searched is one of the essential elements. Section 933.04 provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against - unreasonable seizures and searches shall not be violated and no search warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place to be searched and the person and thing to be seized, (emphasis added)
Accordingly, the order of suppression is affirmed.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)…lso held that knowledge of the contraband is part of the crime. Cohen v. State, 125 So. 2d 560 (Fla.l960)(statute prohibiting selling of obscene materials impliedly included scienter or knowledge of the character of the matter sold). White v. State, 539 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)(the state had the burden of proving that White’s possession was conscious and substantial and not merely involuntary or superficial); Wilcox v. State, 522 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(trial court erred in denying request that t…
-
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS-CRIMINAL CASES NO. 92-1, 603 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1992)…sive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may not be inferred or assumed. Explanation of amendment: This instruction begins on page 111b of the manual. This change (addition of “knowingly” in paragraph (2)) is based on White v. State, 539 So. 2d 577 (Fla.5th DCA 1989). [Page A-44] [*1222] SEXUAL BATTERY — VICTIM TWELVE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER — CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED— (Amended) F.S. 794.011(4) Before you can find the defendant guilty of sexual battery upon a person twelve years of age or older u…
-
Getreu v. State, 578 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…shall set forth the facts on which such reason for belief is based.” The state is not permitted to support an affidavit for search of a dwelling with additional evidence. Panzavecchia v. State, 201 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); see State v. Martin, 539 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Therefore, we conclude that no other circumstances offset the facial deficiencies of the affidavit and the warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause. The invalidity of the warrant notwithstanding, the state contends that t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Younger v. State, 433 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)