ANA LUISA GONZALEZ
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A law enforcement officer may witness a search warrant affidavit without violating section 117.107(12), Florida Statutes, because the officer was not acting as a notary public.
[1] A law enforcement officer who witnesses a document in an official capacity is not acting as a notary public for purposes of the statutory prohibition against notaries not…
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 intelligenceAna Luisa Gonzalez was charged in a criminal case and moved to suppress evidence obtained through a search warrant. She argued that the affidavit supp…
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 Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-0754 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CF-000637-AXXX-XX _____________________________
ANA LUISA GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County. John McGowan, Judge.
August 22, 2025
NARDELLA, J.
Ana Luisa Gonzalez appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress, arguing that the affidavit leading to the search warrant in question was deficient as a matter of law because it was witnessed by a law enforcement officer who was “a party to the underlying transaction” in violation of section 117.107(12), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a notary public from notarizing a signature on a document if the notary “has a financial interest in or is a party to the underlying transaction.” We find this argument unavailing for two reasons. First, the officer who witnessed the search warrant affidavit did not do so as a notary and, thus, the prohibition in
2
section 117.107(12) did not preclude the officer from witnessing the affidavit. Second, even if the officer was acting as a notary, Gonzalez’s broad interpretation of the phrase “underlying transaction” ignores “all the textual and structural clues that bear on the meaning of [the] disputed text.” Conage v. United States, 346 So. 3d 594, 598 (Fla. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
STARGEL and MIZE, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Clara V. Murga, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.