ROBERT C. KAPLAN, 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.
A private citizen has the authority to apply for a search warrant, and the application's contents were sufficient to support its issuance.
Robert C. Kaplan challenged the sufficiency of a search warrant application submitted by a private citizen. The trial court issued the warrant.…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Robert C. Kaplan, challenges the sufficiency of an application for a search warrant made by a private citizen. We affirm.
Kaplan contends that a private citizen has no authority to apply for a search warrant. There is no Florida statute or rule restricting private citizens from signing applications for search warrants. Indeed, the firsthand quality of the information sworn to by a private citizen may be superior to hearsay statements presently allowed under the law to support search warrant applications.1 The same safeguards and other legal requirements for the issuance and service of search warrants apply regardless of who signs the application.2 We have also examined the contents of the application and find them sufficient to support the issuance of the warrant.
AFFIRMED.
MAGER, C. J., and ALDERMAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. . State v. Crisp, 307 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); State v. Niles, 307 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
. Sections 933.04 and 933.07, Florida Statutes (1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 356 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…n on Count I (attempted burglary of a motor vehicle) had been properly preserved for appeal, we would reverse the conviction on that count because the State failed to prove ownership of the motor vehicle as laid in the information, Salerno v. State, 347 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Mitchell v. State, 317 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Smith v. State, 96 Fla. 30, 117 So. 377 (1928). However, although both parties have treated this matter as involving an appeal from the conviction on both counts of the info…
-
In the Interest of M. E., 357 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…The law in this jurisdiction is clear that under statutes denouncing burglarious entering the allegation of ownership of the building entered is material and must be proved as laid. Smith v. State, 96 Fla. 30, 117 So. 377 (1928); Salerno v. State, 347 So. 2d 659 (Fla.4th DCA 1977). There also seems to be unanimity of opinion as to the reason for the foregoing rule. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 So. 179 (1906): “The reasons for requiring the ownership of the building…
-
Covington v. State, 359 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…Indian River County. In burglary prosecutions, it has been repeatedly held that the allegation of ownership of a building alleged to have been burglarized must be proved as alleged. Smith v. State, 96 Fla. 30, 117 So. 377 (1928); Salerno v. State, 347 So. 2d 659, 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Proof of ownership is an essential element of the offense of burglary. In the instant case, the proof of ownership of the property was insufficient to sustain the conviction. While the Board of Public Institution “ran” the…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Crisp, 307 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- State v. Niles, 307 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)