OLIVER C. GLASS, 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.
Oliver Glass was convicted of keeping a gambling house and possessing a machine gun based on evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. The court reversed, holding that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause to search Glass's residential apartment, though it adequately supported searching the rented apartment where gambling occurred.
The search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause to search Glass's residential apartment. While the affidavit supported searching the rented apartment where gambling occurred, the conclusory statement that the entire building facilitated gambling and the observation of Glass counting money in his residence were insufficient to establish probable cause for searching his dwelling.
[1] An affidavit in support of a search warrant must demonstrate probable cause on its face and cannot be supplemented by oral testimony.
[2] Probable cause to search a residential apartment is not established by an unsupported conclusion that the entire premises are being used to facilitate a criminal operatio…
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“An affidavit in support of a search warrant must itself demonstrate probable cause for the issuance of the warrant and cannot be supplemented by oral testimony to establish probable cause.”
Establishes the foundational rule that the affidavit alone must contain sufficient probable cause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGlass owned a two-story building in Fort Lauderdale with a grocery store on the ground floor and two apartments on the second floor. Glass lived in on…
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 Search Warrant Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, JAMES E., Senior Justice.
A jury found defendant, Oliver Glass, guilty of keeping a gambling house and of possession of a machine gun. He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in a search of his dwelling pursuant to a search warrant. His convictions either stand or fall on the legality of this search.
We find that the search warrant affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause to search defendant’s residence. Glass owned a two story, building located on the southwest corner of Northwest 16th Avenue and Northwest 6th Street in Fort Lauderdale. The ground floor of the building housed a grocery ’ store, owned and operated by Glass. There were two apartments on the second floor. Glass resided in one of the apartments and rented the other. Based on their belief that the apartment Glass rented out was used as a gambling house, police sought a search warrant for the grocery store and both apartments.
An affidavit in support of a search warrant must itself demonstrate probable cause for the issuance of the warrant and cannot be supplemented by oral testimony to establish probable cause. Bonilla v. State, 579 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Swartz v. State, 316 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1976).
Although the affidavit in this case demonstrated probable cause to search the apartment defendant rented and in which the games were going on, it failed to demonstrate probable cause to search defendant’s residential apartment. The only statements in the affidavit concerning that apartment are the statement identifying it as defendant’s residence, a statement that the entire building was being used to facilitate the gambling the affiant had seen in the second apartment and a statement that the affiant had seen the defendant sitting in his apartment counting a large sum of money.
The unsupported conclusion that the entire premises were being used to facilitate a gambling operation without more is insufficient to establish probable cause to search Glass’s dwelling. The fact that Glass was seen counting money in his residence is also insufficient in light of the fact that he owned and operated a grocery store on the premises. See Dunnavant v. State, 46 So. 2d 871 (Fla.1950).
We hold that the affidavit failed to demonstrate probable cause to search the apartment defendant used as his residence. Without the machine gun, the defendant cannot be convicted on the possession charge. On the gambling charge, however, even after excluding the evidence that was seized from his residence, there was other evidence presented from which a jury could have found the defendant guilty. A new trial on this charge is required because the evidence seized from the defendant’s dwelling should not have been presented to the jury. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doorbal v. State, 837 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2003)…n to suppress. Taken as a whole, the above circumstances provide probable cause to justify issuance of a warrant to search Doorbal’s automobile, apartment, and home. Moreover, the cases on which Doorbal relies are distinguishable. In Glass v. State, 604 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), the only purported indicia of probable cause to search a defendant’s home for gambling-related activity were conclusory allegations that the home was being used for gambling purposes, and that the defendant had been seen on an u…
Authorities Cited
- Dunnavant v. State, 46 So.2d 871 (Fla. 1950)
- Bonilla v. State, 579 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Swartz v. State, 316 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)