STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK LEWIS CAIN AND JOY LYNN CAIN, APPELLEES
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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the suppression of evidence obtained via a search warrant that had blank date fields, holding that a technical defect in filling in the date does not invalidate the warrant where surrounding circumstances clearly establish when it was issued and the defect is not prejudicial.
The court held that the defect is merely technical and not prejudicial, and therefore the warrant is valid and evidence should not be suppressed. Where common sense permits no inference that the warrant was signed on any date other than May 17, 1972, the omission of the filled-in date, if indisputably supplied by other dates in the documents and not prejudicial, is insufficient ground for suppressing evidence seized.
[1] A search warrant's failure to state the date of issuance is not grounds for suppression of evidence if the omission is indisputably supplied by other dates in the documen…
[2] A technical defect in a search warrant that is not arguably prejudicial should not invalidate the warrant when the surrounding circumstances clearly indicate the date of…
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 the civil rights of persons must be scrupulously respected, mere technicality not arguably prejudicial should not invalidate the warrant where common sense does not allow the inference that the warrant was signed on any date other than May 17, 1972.”
Establishes the court's standard for evaluating technical defects in search warrants—balancing protection of civil rights with practical application of common sense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 17, 1972, police observed marijuana growing on the defendants' premises and obtained a search warrant the same day, which was served on May 17,…
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 Particularity Requirement For Search Warrants cases and more on FLexlaw
Evidence was suppressed because the search warrant was “issued in blank in violation of Section 933.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.” The affidavit alleges observation, on May 17, 1972, of marijuana growing on the defendants’ premises, and was executed May 17, 1972. The warrant was served on May 17, 1972. Thus the sentence, “WITNESS my hand and seal this_day of_, A.D., 19_” indicates merely a failure to fill in a blank. Surrounding circumstances make it clear that all pertinent actions in this case occurred on May 17. The defect is merely technical and not prejudicial. While the civil rights of persons must be scrupulously respected, mere technicality not arguably prejudicial should not invalidate the warrant where common sense does not allow the inference that the warrant was signed on any date other than May 17, 1972.1 In Jackson v. State,2 the warrant purported to allow the search of “the dwelling house of Freddie Jenkins in the county aforesaid,” plainly a failure particularly to describe the premises to be searched. The appellee states that the purpose of requiring a date on the warrant is to insure that it is returned within ten days of issuance.3
In Johnson v. State,4 the Supreme Court of Mississippi held a nullity a warrant issued the “12th day of Johnson, 194_,” despite the trial judge’s permitting amendment later. The opinion does not state facts showing whether the omission might have been prejudicial. The question appears to be novel in Florida. We adhere to the view expressed in other jurisdictions 5 that the omission, if indisputably supplied by other dates in the documents and not prejudicial, is insufficient ground for suppressing evidence seized.
Other objections raised are open for consideration upon remand. The order suppressing is
Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. State, 389 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…rant. Consequently, the warrant did not comply with section 933.07. Search warrants which do not conform strictly to the statutory requirements are void. Pell v. State, 97 Fla. 650, 122 So. 110 (1929). The state relies primarily upon State v. Cain, 272 So. 2d 548 (Fla.2d DCA 1972), in which we held that the failure to date a search warrant was a nonfatal technical defect when there was no proof of prejudice to the defendant and the date of issuance was determinable from the face of the warrant. In the case a…
-
Cain v. State, 287 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1973)…ADKINS, Justice. By petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District (State v. Cain, 272 So. 2d 548), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of this Court (Jackson v. State, 87 Fla. 262, 99 So. 548), on the same point of law. Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A. Petitioners were charged with possession of marijuana. The trial judge, upo…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 87 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1924)
- State v. Holmes, 256 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Nell v. State, 266 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- United States v. Hertel Athletic & Soc. Club, Inc. (W.D.N.Y. 1928)