STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MOSES LEMON, 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.
Florida appeals the trial court's order quashing a search warrant for a lottery law violation investigation. The lower court found the warrant's description of the premises insufficiently clear due to surplus language claiming the residence was the "last house" before railroad tracks when it was actually next-to-last. The appellate court reversed, holding that the specific street address combined with detailed physical description was sufficient to lead an officer unerringly to the correct premises.
The court held that the warrant description was sufficiently clear because it enabled an officer to locate the premises with certainty. The correct street address (507 8th Avenue Drive West) combined with the detailed physical description of the dwelling made the designation sufficient despite the erroneous surplus language about the house's position relative to the railroad tracks.
“a designation or description in a warrant is sufficient when it leads an officer unerringly to the subject premises”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating the sufficiency of a warrant description
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State obtained a search warrant to search a house at 507 8th Avenue Drive West in Bradenton, Florida, in connection with lottery law violations. T…
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 Sufficiency Of Search Warrant Description cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the State from an order granting appellee’s “Motion to Quash Affidavit and Search Warrant.” The State filed several informations in the Manatee County Circuit Court charging the appellee with lottery law violations. The search warrant subject to the order to quash described the house to be searched as follows:
“507 8th Avenue Drive West, in the City of Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida, and being further described as a one-story dwelling of frame construction, painted green in color with a metal roof. Said dwelling is located on the South side of 8th Avenue Drive West and faces north, having an open front porch across the front of the dwelling and the numbers 507 on a support post of the porch. Said dwelling is the last house on the right or south side of 8th Avenue Drive West before 8th Avenue Drive West dead-ends at the Atlantic Coast Line railroad track east of the intersection of 6th Street West and 8th Avenue Drive West.”
The trial judge granted the motion to quash on the ground that the warrant authorizing the search was not sufficiently clear in its description of the subject premises. The appellee, Moses Lemon, resided in the house that was in fact searched. The house was listed as 507 8th Avenue Drive West, and this listing was specifically set out in the warrant. The difficulty arose because of the surplus language in the warrant stating that, “Said dwelling is the last house on the right” before the dead-end at the railroad tracks, when in reality the Lemon residence was the next-to-the-l.ast house before the tracks. Although the case is a close' one, we believe the trial judge erred, and we reverse.
The law has long been settled that a designation or description in a warrant is sufficient when it leads an officer unerringly to the subject premises. Bonner v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 683; Jackson v. State, 1924, 87 Fla. 262, 99 So. 548; Seymore v. State, Fla.App. 1959, 110 So.2d 460 ; 47 Am.Jur., Searches & Seizure § 35. It is a sufficient designation if the officer to whom the warrant is directed is enabled *324to locate the place to be searched with certainty. Jackson v. State, supra; Seymore v. State, supra. We believe the instant case to be within the purport of these general rules. Despite the use of the surplus language that purported to describe the Lemon residence as the “last” house before the railroad tracks, when in fact there was another house between Lemon’s and the tracks, this was not enough to confuse an officer going to the address stated in the warrant. The address, 507 8th Avenue Drive West in the City of Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida, describes the house that was searched, the house belonging to Moses Lemon, and the house listed in the warrant.
For these reasons the order quashing the affidavit and warrant is hereby reversed and remanded for action consistent with this opinion.
ALLEN and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Olivera v. State, 315 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…uirements for making such a [*489] search cannot be less than that necessary to search with a warrant. For a search warrant to be sufficient, the description must lead the officer unerringly to the subject premises. State v. Lemon, Fla.App.2d, 1968, 212 So. 2d 322. Likewise, the requirements of reliability and particularity of information on which an officer may arrest without a warrant are at least as stringent as those required for an arrest with a warrant. Wong Sun v. United States, 1963, 371 U.S. 471, 83…
-
State v. Gallo, 279 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…warrant of the place to be searched, and which was in fact searched, would have been sufficiently specific without reference to the number on the door. Therefore, the incorrect designation of the number was sur-plusage; State v. Lemon, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 322; United States v. Contee, D.C.D.C.1959, 170 F.Supp. 26; United States v. Pisano, S.D.N.Y.1961, 191 F.Supp. 861; United States v. Sklaroff, S.D.Fla.1971, 323 F.Supp. 296, 319; see Annotation, 11 A.L.R.3rd 1330; and was of such a minor nature as not t…
-
Nofs v. State, 295 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…description of the place to be searched would have been sufficiently specific without reference to the floor upon which the apartment was located, and therefore, such reference was surplusage and can be disregarded. State v. Lemon, Fla.App.2d 1968, 212 So. 2d 322; State v. Gallo, Fla.App.2d 1973, 279 So. 2d 71; United States v. Contee, D.C.D.C.1959, 170 F.Supp. 26. The evidence showed that the place searched had its main entrance on the second floor of the building, and that it was a single living unit, dir…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 87 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1924)
- Bonner v. State, 80 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1955)
- Seymore v. State, 110 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)