STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS EDWARD PHILLIP AND CATHY JOSEPHINE PHILLIP, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed suppression of evidence where search warrant failed to command that seized property be brought before a court as required by statute.
A search warrant is defective and invalid if it fails to command the executing officer to return seized property to the issuing judge or another court having jurisdiction, even if it contains the phrase 'to be disposed of according to law.'
[1] A search warrant must explicitly command that seized property be brought before a court having jurisdiction; the phrase 'to be disposed of according to law' does not sati…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“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”
Court's explanation of why general language in the warrant was insufficient to comply with statutory requirements
The State appealed an order granting defendants' motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant that allegedly did not comply with …
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 Return Of Seized Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this interlocutory appeal, the State seeks reversal of the Order granting the defendants’ motion to suppress. The motion to suppress alleged that the search warrant was defective on its face because it did not contain a command that the property to be seized be brought before a court having jurisdiction of the offense as required by F.S. § 933.07.
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. Also see State v. Jones, 307 So. 2d 456 (Fla.App. 1st, 1975). 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 defendants’ 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
Authorities 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)
- Hicken v. State, 307 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- State v. Jones, 307 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)