State v. Gaunt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Gaunt

456 So. 2d 534, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2034, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15065

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 19, 1984

DocketNo. 84-325

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 456 So. 2d 534 (State v. Gaunt) 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

State v. Gaunt, 456 So. 2d 534, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2034, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15065 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIMES, Judge.

The state appeals an order suppressing evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant because a duplicate signed copy of the warrant was not served upon the defendant at the time of its execution as required by section 933.11, Florida Statutes (1983).

Though contested by the defendant, the record supports the lower court’s finding that the search warrant was signed in duplicate by the judge. Moreover, the warrant was read to the defendant at the time the police came to search his house, and a xerox copy showing the judge’s signature was also given to him. When defendant asked for a signed duplicate, the police realized that they did not have a second signed copy. Shortly thereafter, a signed duplicate was obtained from the police station and furnished to the defendant.

Our decision is controlled by Harden v. State, 433 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). There we held that in the absence of a showing of prejudice, the failure to serve a proper copy of a search warrant at the time of its execution does not justify the quashing of the search. As in Harden, the defendant here has made no showing of prejudice.

Defendant’s attempt to recast the issue on appeal by questioning whether the officers had even a signed original with them at the time of the search cannot be sustained. While the record does not unequivocally demonstrate that the officers had a signed original with them, this argument was neither included as a ground in the motion to suppress nor advanced at the hearing on the motion. Therefore, the state cannot be penalized for failure to present a more complete record on this point.

REVERSED.

RYDER, C.J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

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

GRIMES, Judge.

The state appeals an order suppressing evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant because a duplicate signed copy of the warrant was not served upon the defendant at the time of its execution as required by section 933.11, Florida Statutes (1983).

Though contested by the defendant, the record supports the lower court’s finding that the search warrant was signed in duplicate by the judge. Moreover, the warrant was read to the defendant at the time the police came to search his house, and a xerox copy showing the judge’s signature was also given to him. When defendant asked for a signed duplicate, the police realized that they did not have a second signed copy. Shortly thereafter, a signed duplicate was obtained from the police station and furnished to the defendant.

Our decision is controlled by Harden v. State, 433 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). There we held that in the absence of a showing of prejudice, the failure to serve a proper copy of a search warrant at the time of its execution does not justify the quashing of the search. As in Harden, the defendant here has made no showing of prejudice.

Defendant’s attempt to recast the issue on appeal by questioning whether the officers had even a signed original with them at the time of the search cannot be sustained. While the record does not unequivocally demonstrate that the officers had a signed original with them, this argument was neither included as a ground in the motion to suppress nor advanced at the hearing on the motion. Therefore, the state cannot be penalized for failure to present a more complete record on this point.

REVERSED.

RYDER, C.J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 So. 2d 534, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2034, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gaunt-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack