BRIAN P. ROMERO AND TERESA T. SIEBER, APPELLANTS,
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.
Appellants challenged a drug search of their residence, arguing the search warrant was invalid because the named sheriff did not personally direct the search. The Florida Court of Appeal held that deputy sheriffs have the same statutory authority as sheriffs and may execute search warrants on their behalf, making the search valid.
Deputy sheriffs are statutorily equated with sheriffs and may execute search warrants on the sheriff's behalf because they have the same power as the sheriff appointing them. The search warrant was valid and the suppression motion was properly denied.
[1] A search warrant directed to a sheriff may be validly executed by a deputy sheriff acting on behalf of the sheriff.
[2] Florida deputy sheriffs possess the same powers as the sheriff who appointed them and may serve warrants in the sheriff's stead.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“deputy sheriffs are statutorily equated to sheriffs and may execute search warrants in their stead”
The court's holding that deputy sheriffs have the same authority as sheriffs under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 26, 1992, a search warrant was issued to the Sheriff of Bay County to search appellants' residence for drugs and drug-related paraphernal…
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
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from orders denying appellants’ suppression motion and placing appellants on probation. On September 26, 1992, a search warrant was issued to “the Sheriff of Bay County” to search appellants’ residence for drugs and drug-related paraphernalia. The resultant search was executed by a Bay County deputy sheriff and members of the Lynn Haven Police Department. Appellants moved to suppress all statements, evidence, and fruits of the search, contending that the search was invalid under section 933.08, Florida Statutes (1991), because the sheriff was not present and did not direct any officers during the search.
Section 933.08, Florida Statutes (1991), requires that search warrants be served by an officer named therein, but by no other person except in aid of that officer, said officer being present and acting in its execution. We find that the deputy sheriff was sufficiently named in the search warrant at issue in the present case by virtue of the sheriff being specifically named therein. By statute, Florida deputy sheriffs have the “same power” as the sheriff appointing them and may serve warrants on behalf of the sheriff. §§ 30.07 and 30.15(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1991); see also Tanner v. McCall, 626 F. 2d 1183 (5th Cir.1980) (describing deputies as a sheriffs alter ego with all the sheriffs sovereign powers except the power to appoint other deputies), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 907, 101 S.Ct. 1975, 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981); Johnson v. Wilson, 336 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (equating power of sheriff and deputy sheriff under section 30.07).
Differentiating between sheriffs and deputy sheriffs in this context would amount to a distinction without a difference and lead to an absurd result. See Sharon v. State, 156 So. 2d 677 (Fla.3d DCA 1963) (affirming denial of suppression motion under section 933.08 where search warrant directed to defunct sheriffs office was executed by successor metropolitan sheriffs office; refusing to lend credence to such a “distinction without a difference” in order to avoid absurd result). Reading sectioná 933.08, 30.07, and 30.-15(1)(b) in pari materia, deputy sheriffs are statutorily equated to sheriffs and may execute search warrants in their stead. We therefore AFFIRM.
BOOTH, MICKLE and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Marr, 95 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…d not directly lead to the seizure of the contraband, the evidence seized by the Sheriffs Officers should not have been suppressed.2 See State v. Vargas, 667 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1995); State v. Hill, 980 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Romero v. State, 641 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Morris v. State, 622 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Search Warrant Law Desk Book § 12:2 (Feb. 2012); cf. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (holding that it is a violation of the Fourth Am…
Authorities Cited
- Sharon v. State, 156 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- California v. Hall, 451 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1981)
- Roza v. United States, 451 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1981)
- Johnson v. Wilson, 336 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)