JOHN E. PANZAVECCHIA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that an affidavit supporting a search warrant for a private dwelling must establish probable cause on its face, and the state cannot supplement an insufficient affidavit with additional evidence.
Appellant was convicted of a violation of Fla. Stat. § 404.02(4) based on evidence obtained via a search warrant. The affidavit supporting the warrant…
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 Right To Privacy In The Home cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged with a violation of § 404.02(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. He was convicted and sentenced in a non-jury proceeding and seeks review, contending: First, that the trial judge committed error in failing to grant his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search warrant, based on an admitted faulty affidavit. Second, that the trial court' committed error in receiving the alleged testimony in support of the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued. Third, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
The search warrant in the instant cause was issued for the search of a dwelling house. It was conceded by the State, and so found by the trial court, that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was insufficient as a matter of law. However, the State contended that, pursuant to the provisions of § 933.06, Fla. Stat.,1 F.S.A., it had a right to offer additional evidence, which it contended it did before the judge who issued the warrant in support thereof. On this appeal, the appellant contends that going behind this affidavit, upon which the search warrant was issued for search of a dwelling house, violated the provisions of § 933.18, Fla. Stat.,2 F.S.A. We agree with the appellant.
§ 933.06 and § 933.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., were originally enacted at the same Session of the Legislature. § 933.06, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., relates generally to search warrants, and § 933,18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., relates specifically to the search of a dwelling house. There is no dispute on this rec*764ord that the premises searched was a dwelling house and the residence of the appellant. We hold that an affidavit in support of a search warrant for a dwelling house must show probable cause on the face thereof and that the State is not permitted to support the affidavit with additional evidence, as permitted by § 933.06, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. It is reasonable to assume that the Legislature intended, when it enacted the original statutes [which were the forerunners of the present sections] to require a more strict procedure for obtaining the search of a dwelling house than the procedure to be available for general searches. It has long been established that a man’s home is his castle [see: Jackson v. State, 87 Fla. 262, 99 So. 548; Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217; Thurman v. State, 116 Fla. 426, 156 So. 484] and it would be an encroachment on this right of peaceable possession, guaranteed by § 22, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., to condone the issuance of' a search warrant under circumstances as indicated herein. Further, it is a general rule of statutory construction that when the Legislature enacts two laws relating to the same general subject matter, one specific and one general, the specific will control over the general. See: Adams v. Culver, Fla.1959, 111 So.2d 665; St. Joe Paper Company v. Ray, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 646. It is apparent that the Legislature was not content to rely on this general proposition as, in § 933.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., it specifically provided: “No search warrant shall issue under this chapter or under any other law of this state to search any private dwelling * * * ” unless based upon an affidavit in accordance with this section.
Because of our finding that the trial judge committed error in receiving evidence allegedly given to the judge who issued the search warrant in supptírt of the affidavit, the second point relied on by the appellant is moot. And, we do not reach a consideration of the third point because of our determination that the trial court erred in the first instance on the motion to suppress.
Therefore, the judgment of conviction is hereby set aside, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of a new trial.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Filmon v. State, 336 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1976)…ellings both as a matter of Florida law, see Fla.Stat. § 933.18 (1975), Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217 (1932); Pesce v. State, 288 So. 2d 264 (Fla.App.4th, 1974); Cells v. State, 249 So. 2d 509 (Fla.App.2nd, 1971); Panzavecchia v. State, 201 So. 2d 762 (Fla. App.3rd, 1967), and as a federal constitutional matter. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra; Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970); Shipley v. California, 395 U.S. 818, 89 S.Ct. 2053, 23 L.Ed.2d 732 (1969); Stoner v…
-
Wolff v. State, 291 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…in his possession.” We hold that the affidavit was insufficient to authorize a search of the private dwelling. See Dunnavant v. State, Fla. 1950, 46 So. 2d 871; Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217 (1932); Panzavecchia v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 762. The legislature has expressed a particular regard for the necessity of careful compliance with the law when a private dwelling as distinguished from other buildings is to be searched. Fla.Stat. section 933.02, F. S.A., sets forth the grounds for is…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Kerfert Butler Adams v. Culver, 111 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1959)
- Jackson v. State, 87 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1924)
- Harrison v. Simpson, 106 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1932)
- Thurman v. State, 116 Fla. 426 (Fla. 1934)
- ST. JOE Paper Co. v. RAY, 172 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)