STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
THOMAS EDWARD PHILLIP AND CATHY JOSEPHINE PHILLIP, RESPONDENTS
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 Supreme Court quashed a District Court decision suppressing evidence based on a defective search warrant, holding that a warrant need not command physical return of property to the issuing magistrate in all cases.
A search warrant is not defective merely because it fails to command return of property to the issuing magistrate in all cases.
[1] A search warrant is not defective on its face merely because it fails to command physical return of evidence to the issuing magistrate in all cases.
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“We reject as unworkable and unnecessarily technical any suggestion that a statute requires a warrant to direct the physical return of evidence to the issuing magistrate himself in all cases.”
The Court's statement of the governing legal standard for search warrant validity regarding return of property.
The trial court granted a motion to suppress evidence based on an allegation that a search warrant was defective on its face for failing to command re…
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
ROBERTS, Justice.
This cause is before us on certiorari granted without oral argument to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, 311 So. 2d 796, which directly conflicts with this Court’s recent decision in State v. Laiser, 322 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1975), thus vesting jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Constitution of Florida.
In a decision affirming an order of the trial court granting a motion to suppress based on an 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 the physical return of evidence to the issuing magistrate himself in all cases.”
The decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, is quashed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…Fla.3d DCA 1974). Property rights not adjudicated on dissolution can be determined later when jurisdiction to do so has been reserved. Galbut v. Garfinkl, 340 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1976); Hyman v. Hyman, 310 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. discharged 329 So. 2d 299 (1976); Seale v. Seale, 350 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). However, the reservation of jurisdiction contemplated by the foregoing cases is a specific reservation for the purpose of making a later adjudication of property rights. It is important to…
-
Mason v. Mason, 371 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…(Fla.3d DCA 1974). Property rights not adjudicated on dissolution can be determined later when jurisdiction to do so has been reserved. Galbut v. Garfinkl, 340 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1976); Hyman v. Hyman, 310 So. 2d 378 (Fla.2d DCA 1975), cert. discharged 329 So. 2d 299 (1976); Seale v. Seale, 350 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). However, the reservation of jurisdiction contemplated by the foregoing cases is a specific reservation for the purpose of making a later adjudication of property rights. The general reserva…
-
Galbut v. Garfinkl, 340 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1976)…The trial judge in a marriage dissolution proceeding has the power to reserve jurisdiction for the purpose of settling property rights after entering the decree of dissolution. Hyman v. Hyman, 310 So. 2d 378 (Fla.2d DCA, 1975), certiorari discharged 329 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1976); Kipnis v. Kipnis, 330 So. 2d 67 (Fla.3d DCA, 1976); Becker v. King, 307 So. 2d 855 (Fla.4th DCA, 1975), certiorari dismissed 317 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1975); In re the Marriage of Golub, 310 So. 2d 380 (Fla.2d DCA, 1975); Klarish v. Klarish, 29…
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. Laiser, 322 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1975)
- Locke v. State, 299 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Laiser v. State, 299 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Davis v. Jonita, Inc., 311 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)