State v. Phillip

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Phillip

311 So. 2d 796, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15131

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1975

DocketNo. X-72

StatusPublished

This text of 311 So. 2d 796 (State v. Phillip) 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. Phillip, 311 So. 2d 796, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15131 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal, the State seeks reversal of the Order granting the defendants’ motion to suppress. The motion to suppress alleged that the search warrant was defective on its face because it did not contain a command that the property to be seized be brought before a court having jurisdiction of the offense as required by F.S. § 933.07.

It is our conclusion that this case falls squarely within the opinion announced in the case of Laiser v. State, 299 So.2d 39 (Fla.App. 4th, 1974) and we affirm. That case, relying upon the prior decision of this Court in State v. Dawson, 276 So.2d 65 (Fla.App. 1st, 1973) held that the phrase “to be disposed of according to law” in a search warrant commanding an [797]*797officer to keep seized property in their possession, does not satisfy by implication the mandate of F.S. § 933.07, requiring that the property be brought before the magistrate. Also see State v. Jones, 307 So.2d 456 (Fla.App. 1st, 1975). The warrant herein, by failing to command the executing officer to return the seized property to the issuing judge or another court having jurisdiction, was defective and invalid, and the trial court properly granted defendants’ motion to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to such warrant.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal, the State seeks reversal of the Order granting the defendants’ motion to suppress. The motion to suppress alleged that the search warrant was defective on its face because it did not contain a command that the property to be seized be brought before a court having jurisdiction of the offense as required by F.S. § 933.07.

It is our conclusion that this case falls squarely within the opinion announced in the case of Laiser v. State, 299 So.2d 39 (Fla.App. 4th, 1974) and we affirm. That case, relying upon the prior decision of this Court in State v. Dawson, 276 So.2d 65 (Fla.App. 1st, 1973) held that the phrase “to be disposed of according to law” in a search warrant commanding an [797]*797officer to keep seized property in their possession, does not satisfy by implication the mandate of F.S. § 933.07, requiring that the property be brought before the magistrate. Also see State v. Jones, 307 So.2d 456 (Fla.App. 1st, 1975). The warrant herein, by failing to command the executing officer to return the seized property to the issuing judge or another court having jurisdiction, was defective and invalid, and the trial court properly granted defendants’ motion to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to such warrant.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

311 So. 2d 796, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-phillip-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack