STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN PAUL JONES, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Search Warrant Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this interlocutory appeal, the State seeks reversal of the Order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to a defective search warrant.
It is our conclusion that this case falls squarely within the opinion announced in the case of Laiser v. State, 299 So. 2d 39 (Fla.App.4th, 1974) and we affirm. That case, relying upon the prior decision of this Court in State v. Dawson, 276 So. 2d 65 (Fla.App. 1st, 1973) held that the phrase “[to] be disposed of according to law” in a search warrant commanding an officer to keep seized property in their possession, does not satisfy by implication the mandate of F.S. § 933.07, requiring that the property be brought before the magistrate. The warrant herein, by failing to command the executing officer to return the seized property to the issuing judge or another court having jurisdiction, was defective and invalid, and the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to such warrant.
Affirmed.
JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Laiser, 322 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1975)…o retain that which is seized within the jurisdiction of the court or to protect the accused’s and the state’s rights to have the integrity of the evidence preserved. . We note that the decision below was relied upon and followed in State v. Jones, 307 So. 2d 456 (1st DCA Fla.1975). Four days after that decision was entered, the State formally filed a declaration in circuit court that Jones would not be further prosecuted in state court on tiie allegations in the information originally filed against him. Non…
-
State v. Richardson, 318 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ree of specificity. A search warrant legally complies with the statutory requirements when it contains a command that the seized property be returned either to the issuing judge or another court having jurisdiction. See State v. Jones, Fla.App.1975, 307 So. 2d 456. . The order of suppression tends to confirm the representation that no testimony was presented: “ . . . Defendant’s Motion to Suppress having come before the Court this date, and the Court having heard argument of both the State and Counsel for th…
-
State v. Jones, 322 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1975)…decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. It is essential, therefore, that we reconcile the decisional law of this state by granting the State’s request for rehearing and quashing the decision of the First District Court of Appeal reported at 307 So. 2d 456. It is so ordered.* ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur. * We note that the state attorney has, by formal filing in the circuit court, noticed his election not to prosecute respondent further under the information origina…
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. Dawson, 276 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Locke v. State, 299 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Laiser v. State, 299 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)