Pepilus v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pepilus v. State

554 So. 2d 667, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 58, 1990 WL 757

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 1990

DocketNo. 88-02909

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 554 So. 2d 667 (Pepilus v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pepilus v. State, 554 So. 2d 667, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 58, 1990 WL 757 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell and raises three contentions. We affirm.

Defendant’s first contention is that the search warrant pursuant to which cocaine was seized from defendant’s residence was defective because the officer’s supporting affidavit, while signed by the officer and sworn to by him before a judge who signed the affidavit, did not contain an attesting seal. We disagree with that contention. The absence of the seal did not render the search warrant fatally defective. See State v. McManus, 404 So.2d 757, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 468 (Fla.1982). The officer, by swearing to the affidavit, subjected himself to a charge of perjury if the affidavit proved untrue. See Collins v. State, 465 So.2d 1266, 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

We need not address the additional arguments of the state regarding defendant’s first contention. Those are generally that the relevant statutes do not require a seal under these circumstances, that defendant did not have standing to raise the contention, and that the good faith exception under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, [668]*668104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) applies.

We also disagree with defendant’s second contention. See Bello v. State, 547 So.2d 914, 918 (Fla.1989), and third contention, see State v. Daophin, 533 So.2d 761 (Fla.1988); Palmer v. State, 489 So.2d 226, 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Affirmed.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell and raises three contentions. We affirm.

Defendant’s first contention is that the search warrant pursuant to which cocaine was seized from defendant’s residence was defective because the officer’s supporting affidavit, while signed by the officer and sworn to by him before a judge who signed the affidavit, did not contain an attesting seal. We disagree with that contention. The absence of the seal did not render the search warrant fatally defective. See State v. McManus, 404 So.2d 757, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 468 (Fla.1982). The officer, by swearing to the affidavit, subjected himself to a charge of perjury if the affidavit proved untrue. See Collins v. State, 465 So.2d 1266, 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

We need not address the additional arguments of the state regarding defendant’s first contention. Those are generally that the relevant statutes do not require a seal under these circumstances, that defendant did not have standing to raise the contention, and that the good faith exception under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, [668]*668104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) applies.

We also disagree with defendant’s second contention. See Bello v. State, 547 So.2d 914, 918 (Fla.1989), and third contention, see State v. Daophin, 533 So.2d 761 (Fla.1988); Palmer v. State, 489 So.2d 226, 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Affirmed.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 So. 2d 667, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 58, 1990 WL 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pepilus-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack