CHARLES ARTHUR GELIS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Charles Arthur Gelis appealed his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny itself. The court found that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to meet statutory requirements by not setting forth specific facts underlying probable cause, and reversed the judgment for a new trial.
The affidavit did not satisfy the statutory requirement that it 'set forth the facts on which such reason or belief is based,' and therefore the evidence seized under the warrant should have been suppressed and held inadmissible at trial.
[1] An affidavit for a search warrant must set forth the facts on which the affiant's reason or belief is based.
[2] Evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant issued based on an insufficient affidavit must be suppressed.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We agree with appellant that the affidavit does not fulfill the requirement of the statute that it 'set forth the facts on which such reason or belief is based.'”
The court's holding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was legally insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGelis was arrested for breaking and entering and grand larceny. Police obtained a search warrant for his dwelling based on an affidavit that stated Ge…
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 Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of the judgment and sentence entered against him. The appellant was informed against and upon trial found guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony therein, to-wit: grand larceny and with the crime of grand larceny itself. He was sentenced to serve a fifteen-year sentence for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and a five-year sentence for committing grand larceny tó run concurrently with the former, both at hard labor in the state penitentiary.
Through the use of a pretrial motion to suppress and by objection during trial, both *510of which were denied, appellant’s counsel alleged that certain items of physical evidence had been illegally obtained through the use of a search warrant. Notwithstanding appellant’s contention, some of the items found in the search were admitted into evidence.
Appellant questions the legal sufficiency of the affidavit as to probable cause upon which the search warrant was issued. F.S. § 933.18, F.S.A., is applicable in our determination of the validity of the warrant since it was appellant’s dwelling which was authorized to be and in fact searched. That portion of the affidavit which warrants scrutiny reads:
“That the aforesaid probable cause of affiant is based on the following facts:
Charles Arthur Gelis has been arrested for B&E and Grand Larceny of said personal property based on known incriminating facts and and [sic] evidence in possession of affiant, wearing appar-rel [sic] and other evidence used in connection with commission of said crime has not been recovered and is believed to be at above premises.”
We agree with appellant that the affidavit does not fulfill the requirement of the statute that it “set forth the facts on which such reason or belief is based.” Parnell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 910, rev’d on other grounds, Fla.1969, 221 So.2d 129, opinion vacated, Fla.App.1969, 233 So.2d 437. Therefore, items of evidence seized thereunder should have been suppressed and held inadmissible at trial.
For the reasons stated the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for new trial.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Filmon v. State, 336 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1976)…Warrants are generally necessary for searches of private dwellings 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, 3…
-
Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1976)…search and seizure of appellant’s dwelling is in violation of Fla.Const. art. I, § 12 (1975). 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 Dist.1974); Gelis v. State, 249 So. 2d 509 (Fla.App. 2d Dist.1971); Panzavecchia v. State, 201 So. 2d 762 (Fla.App. 3d Dist.1967). In Florida, the exclusionary rule is not merely a judicial construct hut is written into the Constitution itself. “Articles or information” obtained unreasonably…
-
Swartz v. State, 316 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…e cause test and therefore was the proper basis for the issuance of the search warrant in question. * * * ” (288 So. 2d 550-551) Appellant relies heavily upon an opinion of our sister court of the Second District, Gelis v. State, Fla.App. 2nd 1971, 249 So. 2d 509. The reported facts in that case are so scanty that we are unable to determine its application here. The articles to be searched for are not identified nor are we informed of the articles found. Neither does the opinion set forth that portion of the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hiram Cazes Parnell, 221 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1969)
- Hiram Cazes Parnell v. State, 204 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Hiram Cazes Parnell v. State, 233 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)