JEFF PARTIN, JR., 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.
Defendant was convicted of possessing three stolen items (a radio, camera with tripod, and necklace) seized during a lawful search warrant execution. The court affirmed, holding that officers may lawfully seize property not specifically described in a search warrant if they have probable cause to believe it is stolen property and the items fall within plain view during a lawful search.
Officers conducting a search under a valid search warrant may lawfully seize property not specifically described in the warrant if they have probable cause to believe it is stolen property. Objects in plain view of an officer who has a lawful right to be in position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced into evidence.
[1] Officers executing a valid search warrant may lawfully seize property not specifically described in the warrant if they have probable cause to believe it is stolen.
[2] Items falling within the plain view of an officer lawfully present at a location are subject to seizure.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a law enforcement officer conducting a search under a valid search warrant as in the case sub judice may lawfully seize property not specifically described in the warrant if he has probable cause to believe it to be stolen property”
Establishes the central legal principle that officers may seize items beyond those listed in a warrant if they have probable cause to believe them stolen
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers executed a valid search warrant at defendant's home that described ten stolen items. They found a radio matching the warrant's description bu…
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 Buying, Receiving Or Concealing Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried and convicted of buying, receiving or concealing stolen property, to-wit: (1) a transistor radio and case, (2) a camera and tripod, and (3) a necklace.
The evidence admitted at trial was seized at the appellant’s home by officers armed with a search warrant describing ten stolen items. They found the radio which matched the description in the warrant, but failed to find the other nine listed items. They seized 13 other items found in the house. Two of these items, a camera and tripod and necklace, were stolen and defendant was charged with their possession along with the radio. At trial, all three items were introduced into evidence over the defendant’s objection.
On appeal, defendant-appellant attacks the ruling of the lower court which sustained the validity of the seizure of property not specifically described in the search warrant.
This court has held that a law enforcement officer conducting a search under a valid search warrant as in the case sub judice may lawfully seize property not specifically described in the warrant if he has probable cause to believe it to be stolen property. Ludwig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 898; United States v. Sklaroff, 323 F.Supp. 296 (D.C.1971).
In the case at bar, the police officer testified that upon observing certain items not listed in the search warrant, he had reason to believe that these items, particularly the camera and tripod and the necklace, were stolen. In addition, the record reflected that there were many other items, including jewelry, which the police officer left because they were not listed in the search warrant and he had no- personal knowledge to believe or to presume that they were stolen.
Further, it has long been held that objects falling in the “plain view” of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced into evidence. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968). Once the privacy of a dwelling has been lawfully invaded, it is senseless to require the police to obtain an additional warrant to seize items they discover in the process of a lawful search. Anglin v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 439 F.2d 1342 (4 Cir. 1971).
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cleveland v. State, 287 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…rs, armed with a valid search warrant, were lawfully on the premises. We find the search in the case sub judice was lawful and continuous and the fruits thereof [i. e. the blank driver’s licenses] were admissible. See Partin v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 277 So. 2d 847. We have considered also appellant’s second point on appeal and find that to be lacking in merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction, but we find error in the sentence in the respect set out below. No contention of invalidity of th…
-
Hess v. State, 309 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…ok to determine whether these sets, or any of them, had been stolen. The officers were justified in seizing the contraband in their plain view. Ludwig v. State, Fla.App. 3rd 1968, 215 So. 2d 898. As pointed out in Partin v. State, Fla.App. 3rd 1973, 277 So. 2d 847, it would have been senseless to have required the police officers to obtain an additional search warrant to seize items of contraband discovered in a lawful search of the premises. We think that under all the circumstances the search was reasonable…
-
State v. Weber, 548 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…Seizure § 4.10(a), (d) (2d ed. 1987). Other contraband found in plain view or discovered in the course of the search may properly be seized. Alford v. State, 307 So. 2d at 439; Hess v. State, 309 So. 2d 606, 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Partin v. State, 277 So. 2d 847, 848 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 283 So. 2d 563 (Fla.1973); Ludwig v. State, 215 So. 2d 898, 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 536 (Fla.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 927, 90 S.Ct. 261, 24 L.Ed.2d 225 (1969); see 2 W. LaFave, Search a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1968)
- Bernie Ludwig v. State, 215 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Stewart v. State, 215 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Anglin v. Dir., Patuxent Inst., 439 F.2d 1342 (4th Cir. 1971)