RICHARD T. MARTIN, 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.
Martin appealed the denial of his motion to suppress marijuana seized under a search warrant, arguing the warrant was invalid. The court agreed, finding the warrant fatally defective because the issuing judge never signed an original warrant document, only a photocopy marked as a 'true copy,' violating Florida's strict statutory requirements for warrant issuance.
The search warrant was invalid and the evidence must be suppressed. Section 933.07, F.S. 1973 requires that a search warrant be 'issued' and 'signed by' the committing magistrate with his name of office. Signing a photocopy marked 'true copy' does not constitute the issuance of a warrant; no warrant was ever issued, making the search void.
[1] A search warrant must be signed by the issuing magistrate to be valid.
[2] A "true copy" of a search warrant, even if stamped and dated, is insufficient if the original warrant was not signed by the magistrate.
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“Section 933.07, F.S.1973, requires that, upon sufficient application, a committing magistrate shall "issue a search warrant signed by him with his name of office."”
Establishes the statutory requirement that a magistrate must sign the original warrant, not just a copy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice Lt. Schmelter obtained a search warrant application from a circuit judge. An original typewritten search warrant was prepared but never signed …
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 Strict Compliance With Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
NcNULTY, Chief Judge.
Appellant assails an order denying his motion to quash and suppress certain marijuana and paraphernalia seized pursuant to a warrant. Specifically, he urges that the warrant was invalid. We agree.
Police Lt. Schmelter of the St. Leo Police Department presented his affidavit and application for search warrant to the presiding circuit judge. An original typewritten document entitled “SEARCH WARRANT”, presumably sufficient on its face, was prepared. This original document was, however, never signed nor dated by the trial judge. Several photocopies of the document were made and one such photocopy was presented to the judge for his signature. At the left hand corner thereof the judge’s signature appears over a rubber stamp reading “true copy,” and the blank provided for the day of the month was filled in by hand with the number 7. No signature appears over the line designated for the judge’s signature nor was his signature “conformed” in this space. The record further reveals that this “true copy” was the document in possession of the officer when the warrant was executed and that a second photocopy unsigned at any place, was delivered to appellant during the execution of the warrant.
Section 933.07, F.S.1973, requires that, upon sufficient application, a committing magistrate shall “issue a search warrant signed by him with his name of office.” (Italics supplied.) Section 933.11, F.S.1973, requires that all search warrants be issued in duplicate and that a copy be served on the occupant of the premises to be searched upon the execution of the warrant by the proper officer. While it may be argued that the omission to issue a duplicate copy or the failure to serve an unsigned duplicate on the person in charge of the premises to be searched may not be fatal,1 we are of the view that the failure of the issuing magistrate to sign an original warrant pursuant to § 933.07, supra, is.2
It is rudimentary that the statutes relating to the issuance of search warrants should be strictly complied with;3 and it is clear that the constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures contemplate that the generally required issuance of a search warrant be the solemn, deliberative and reflective judicial act of a neutral and detached magistrate. It cannot and need not be assumed that the execution of a “true copy,” a mere minis terial act, is done with the same solemnity, deliberation and reflection. Here, simply, no warrant was ever “issued.” The search pursuant to the purported “warrant,” therefore, was void.
In view whereof, the order denying appellant’s motion to quash and suppress should be, and it is hereby, reversed; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith,
HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur. . Nee State v. Henderson (Fla.App.4th, 1971), 253 So. 2d 158.
. See Pell v. State (1929) 97 Fla. 650, 122 So. 110.
. Id.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. State, 389 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…defendant and the date of issuance was determinable from the face of the warrant. In the case at bar, the omitted designation could not be discerned from the warrant. The defective warrant here is more like the warrant considered in Martin v. State, 344 So. 2d 248 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). In that case we noted that the failure of the issuing magistrate to sign the original of the search warrant was a fatal defect. The court reasoned that section 933.07 mandated the signing of the warrant and that strict compliance…
Authorities Cited
- Pell v. State, 97 Fla. 650 (Fla. 1929)
- Joyce v. P. G. C. Corp., 253 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)