STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD E. HUTCHINS, 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 appealed a trial judge's grant of a new trial in a receiving stolen property case, arguing the search warrant was sufficiently specific despite not describing all seized items in complete detail. The appellate court reversed, holding that the warrant's description of some items, combined with burglar identification of the property, provided sufficient particularity and probable cause.
The search warrant sufficiently described the property to be seized. While the warrant did not describe all items seized, it described a sufficient amount of property, and items not fully described were further identified by the burglars themselves. Improperly seized items could be suppressed without suppressing those properly seized under the warrant.
[1] A search warrant is sufficiently particular if it describes some of the property to be seized, even if it does not describe all of the property seized.
[2] Property seized pursuant to a search warrant may be admissible if identified by the individuals who committed the burglary from which the property was stolen.
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“While it is true the warrant did not describe all of the property seized, it did describe a sufficient amount of the property; and that which was not described by the warrant was further identified by the burglars.”
The court's holding that partial description plus burglar identification satisfies warrant particularity requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee Hutchins was charged with receiving and concealing stolen property. Two burglars, Robert L. Bell and Wilbur Bolius, testified they committed …
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
Appellee was charged with the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property. Following a jury trial and conviction, the trial judge granted a new trial on the grounds that the search warrant did not sufficiently describe the property to be seized because it did not contain as complete a description of the property to be seized as was available to the State at the time of application for the search warrant. The items allegedly stolen were socket wrenches, meter, timing light, well meters, radios, drills and other mechanics’ tools located at Gulf Coast Motors. Two of the sockets allegedly stolen were metric sockets having the letter “F” for Frank Bachelor, who was a mechanic at Gulf Coast Motors, and other markings that he had on some of the tools.
Robert L. Bell testified that he and Wilbur Bolius committed the burglary and they identified certain of the tools that they had taken from Gulf Coast Motors. He further testified that he sold these tools to the appellee, Richard E. Hutchins, for the sum of $75.00. Both Bell and Bolius accompanied the officers when the search was made and they identified the property that they had stolen and sold to appellee, Richard E. Hutchins. They further identified the socket wrench and numerous and sundry other tools.
We believe the trial court erred in granting a new trial based on the fact that the warrant did not sufficiently describe the property. While it is true the warrant did not describe all of the property seized, it did describe a sufficient amount of the property; and that which was not described by the warrant was further identified by the burglars. If some of the tools were improperly seized, those which were properly seized should not have been suppressed.
We believe the search warrant sufficiently described certain of the items seized and coupled with the identification of the items by the burglars there was probable cause to believe the items were *379stolen property. Ludwig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 898.
For the foregoing reasons, the cause is reversed and remanded for action consistent with this opinion.
MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winchell v. State, 362 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…search the room further and, instead, went to the circuit court to obtain a search warrant for the premises. The warrant was properly issued and, upon the attendant search, the remaining contraband was lawfully seized. See, e. g., State v. Hutchins, 269 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); and Ludwig v. State, 215 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). There is no question in our mind about the legality of the search and seizure of the contraband in this case. However, a more difficult problem arises in regard to appellan…
-
Walker v. State, 281 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…re, we reverse and remand the case with directions to the trial judge to discharge appellant. LILES, J., concurs. MANN, C. J., concurs specially, with opinion. . See Shreves v. State, Fla.App.1972, 269 So. 2d 390; State v. Hutchins, Fla.App.1972, 269 So. 2d 377; Chesebrough v. State, Fla.1971, 255 So. 2d 675; State v. Ashby, Fla.1971, 245 So. 2d 225.…
-
Hutchins v. State, 273 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 269 So. 2d 377. ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Bernie Ludwig v. State, 215 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Stewart v. State, 215 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)