CITY OF OPA-LOCKA
v.
WILLIAMS
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 reversed a conviction where police seized bolita tickets from a person lawfully present in a pool hall during a search warrant execution, holding that the warrant did not authorize searching individuals with no connection to the premises or suspected involvement in the gambling operation.
A search warrant authorizing search of premises and persons connected with or suspected of gambling operations does not extend to individuals lawfully present on the premises who have no connection to or suspicion of involvement in the operations.
[1] A search warrant authorizing search of premises and persons connected with gambling operations does not extend to innocent third parties lawfully present on the premises…
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 intelligence“The search warrant held by the officers could not be properly extended to permit search and seizure of articles held on the person of one lawfully on the premises and not shown to have had or to have even been suspected of any relationship to the premises or the operations therein conducted.”
Court's statement of the legal principle limiting the scope of the search warrant to persons with actual or suspected connection to the gambling operations.
Police officers executed a search warrant at a pool hall and seized alleged bolita tickets from the appellant, who was lawfully engaged in playing poo…
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 Seizure Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon review of the record and after oral argument before the court, the court finds as follows—
That certain alleged bolita tickets were taken from the person of the appellant by police officers while they were conducting a search of a pool hall pursuant to authority of a duly issued search warrant.
The search warrant provided the officers with authority to search the premises described and “all persons therein who shall be connected with or suspected of being connected with the operating or maintaining or possession of said gaming or gambling games, lottery devices, equipment, paraphernalia, and all other things . . .”
*84The evidence indicated that appellant was lawfully in the premises engaged in a game of or about to engage in a game of pool. He had no connection with the premises or any phase of its operation. He was not an habituate of the place and was not under suspicion for having any part in the operations carried on there.
The search warrant held by the officers could not be properly extended to permit search and seizure of articles held on the person of one lawfully on the premises and not shown to have had or to have even been suspected of any relationship to the premises or the operations therein conducted.
The trial court should have granted appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence presented by the officers which they obtained from appellant’s person.
The judgment and sentence of the trial court are hereby reversed.