STEPHEN ALLEN LAISER, 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.
Laiser challenged a search warrant for failing to command the executing officer to return seized property to the judge, as required by Florida Statute § 933.07. The Fourth District reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding the warrant invalid due to this statutory defect.
The court held that the search warrant was invalid and the motion to suppress should have been granted. The statute plainly requires that a warrant command that the property specified be brought before the court having jurisdiction, and this requirement cannot be satisfied by implication through the phrase "to be disposed of according to law."
[1] A search warrant must strictly conform to statutory provisions authorizing its issuance.
[2] A search warrant must command the executing officer to bring seized property before the issuing magistrate or a court with jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 search warrant must conform strictly to the statutory provisions authorizing its issuance. A strict construction of Section 933.07 suggests that it is only the 'property specified' . . . that is required to be brought before the committing magistrate.”
Establishes the strict construction standard for search warrants and the clear statutory requirement to bring specified property before the magistrate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA search warrant was issued authorizing officers to search premises for illegal narcotics and dangerous drugs, and to arrest violators. The warrant co…
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 Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
This is a challenge to the validity of a search warrant. Appellant claims that the court erred:
“in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence where evidence was seized pursuant to the execution of a search warrant and where said search warrant failed to command the executing officer, pursuant to F.S. 933.07 to return the seized property before the judge who signed the warrant.”
We agree and reverse.
The relevant portion of the warrant reads:
“NOW THEREFORE, you, or either of you are hereby commanded with proper and necessary assistance, in the name of the State of Florida, m the daytime or in the nighttime, or on Sunday, to enter the said premises hereinbefore specified, to there diligently search for ‘illegal narcotics and/or-dangerous drugs’ and if the same, or any part thereof, shall be found on said premises then you are authorized and commanded to seize and safely keep the same in your possession to be disposed of according to lazv, and to arrest the said ‘person/s unknown’ or any other persons found violating the law in connection with the same, and to bring them before ‘the County Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Criminal Division’ or before any other Court having jurisdiction of the offense, to be dealt with according to law. . . .” (emphasis supplied)
F.S. § 933.07 (1973) provides:
“. . . Issuance of search warrants. —The judge, upon examination of the application and proofs submitted, if satisfied that probable cause exists for the issuing of the search warrant, shall thereupon issue a search warrant signed by him with his name of office, to any sheriff iand his deputies or any police officer or other person authorized by law to execute process, commanding the officer or person forthwith to search the property described in the warrant or the person named, for the property specified, and to bring the same before the magistrate or some other court having jurisdiction of the offense.” (emphasis supplied)
Although the state argues that the word “them” in the warrant refers to the things seized as well as to persons apprehended, the reasoning is not persuasive. It is evident that the noun “same” was used to refer to the things seized, and the pronoun “them” was used to refer to persons apprehended.
The state has urged that the phrase, “to be disposed of according to law” satisfies the requirements of F.S. 933.07 by implication. We do not agree. The plain language of the statute says the warrant shall contain a command that the property specified be brought before the court having jurisdiction.
In State v. Dawson, 276 So. 2d 65 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1973) the court upheld an order finding a warrant invalid for failure to command return of person and property. This court held in State v. Schectman, 291 So. 2d 259 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1974) that a failure to command return of the person in possession was not error, but that failure to command return of the property seized would be.
‘‘Unquestionably, a search warrant must conform strictly to the statutory provisions authorizing its issuance. A strict construction of Section 933.07 suggests that it is only the ‘property specified’ . . . that is required to be brought before the committing magistrate.” Id. at 261.
The motion to suppress should have been granted in the instant case.
We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Laiser, 322 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1975)…ENGLAND, Justice. By petition for a writ of certiorari, we are asked to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, reported at 299 So. 2d 39, involving the custodial duties of law enforcement officials with respect to evidence seized under a valid search warrant. Jurisdiction for our review is conferred by Article V, Section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, in that the district court…
-
State v. Phillip, 329 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1976)…allegation that a search warrant was defective on its face because it failed to command a return of the property to the issuing court, the District Court relied upon the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Laiser v. State, 299 So. 2d 39 (Fla.App. 4th, 1973), which decision was quashed by this Court in State v. Laiser, supra. In State v. Laiser, supra, this Court stated: “We reject as unworkable and unnecessarily technical any suggestion that a statute requires a warrant to direct…
-
Joyner v. State, 325 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1976)…M. Certiorari was granted in this cause because of apparent conflict between the instant decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, 303 So. 2d 60, and the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Laiser v. State, 299 So. 2d 39 (Fla.App. 4th 1974). Since the granting of this writ, the District Court’s decision in Laiser, supra, has been quashed by this Court in State v. Laiser, 322 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1975). Accordingly, conflict having been dispelled, the writ heretofore iss…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Dawson, 276 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- State v. Schectman, 291 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)