MARK SERENA
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 search warrant is valid when it describes the premises to be searched with practical accuracy and enables the searcher with reasonable effort to identify the location, even if the description is somewhat overbroad.
[1] A search warrant's description of the premises satisfies constitutional and statutory requirements when it enables identification of the location with reasonable effort u…
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 test to be applied in determining the validity of a search warrant is whether, when a search warrant is read in a common sense, not technical, way, it shows ample facts to establish probable cause and enables the searcher, with reasonable effort, to identify the place to be searched. The test is one of practical accuracy, not technical nicety.”
Court's statement of the governing legal standard for search warrant validity
Mark Serena appealed a conviction from the Circuit Court for Lee County. The appeal involved the validity of a search warrant's description of the pre…
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 Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-0679 Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CF-016133
MARK SERENA, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Andrew Marcus, Judge.
August 14, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See United States v. Smith, 531 F. 3d 1261, 1264 (10th Cir. 2008) ("The warrant in this case . . . contained an accurate and adequate description of the property, even if it turned out to be broader than appropriate . . . We therefore conclude that any overbreadth in the warrant's description of the premises to be searched did not render the warrant invalid."); Harman v. Pollock, 446 F. 3d 1069, 1074 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[A]lthough the address given in the warrant was not the address of the garage residence, 'the description of the premises to be searched . . .
still describe[d] the same piece of property." (quoting United States v. Gitcho, 601 F. 2d 369, 371-72 (8th Cir. 1979))); see generally Clapsaddle v. State, 545 So. 2d 946, 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (“The test to be applied in determining the validity of a search warrant is whether, when a search warrant is read in a common sense, not technical, way, it shows ample facts to establish probable cause and enables the searcher, with reasonable effort, to identify the place to be searched. The test is one of practical accuracy, not technical nicety.").
TRAVER, C.J., and NARDELLA and MIZE, JJ., concur.
Jason T. Forman, of Law Offices of Jason T. Forman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marena S. Ramirez, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Gitcho, 601 F.2d 369 (8th Cir. 1979)
- Clapsaddle v. State, 545 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)