State v. Porter

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Porter

35 Fla. Supp. 2d 42

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJune 4, 1987

DocketCase No. 86-279-AP (County Court Case No. 86-1507-MM)

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 42 (State v. Porter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits 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. Porter, 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 42 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

JOHN THURMAN, Circuit Judge.

The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering the return of material seized for allegedly violating F. S. § 847.011.

At the onset, it should be noted that the legality of the warrant is not relevant. F.S. 847.011(7) clearly regulates the return of such material. It provides inter alia, that once the items are no longer required as evidence, (i.e. after suppression of the evidence because of [43]*43an illegal search, trial or nolle prosequi) any claimant may move the Court for disposition of said property upon written motion and after notice and hearing the Court shall determine if the same was possessed or otherwise dealt with in violation of F. S. 847.011. If so, there is a provision for its destruction. If not, it shall be returned to the claimant if she shows that she is entitled to its possession.

A mere showing that the material is obscene is not enough to require its destruction. At the Evidentiary Hearing, if it is shown that the material is, in fact, obscene it then becomes necessary to determine if such material was held in violation of the Statute. In making that decision the Trial Court should consider St. v Kraham 360 SO.2d 393 (Fla. 1978); Stanley v Georgia 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969(; and F.S. 847.011(b). While the private possession of obscene material is legal, its possession for the purpose of sale or distribution is illegal and subjects such material to destruction by Order of Court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED for an Evidentiary Hearing consistent with this Opinion.

(LOCKETT, J., Circuit Appellate Chief Judge and McNEAL, R., Circuit Judge, concur)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

JOHN THURMAN, Circuit Judge.

The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering the return of material seized for allegedly violating F. S. § 847.011.

At the onset, it should be noted that the legality of the warrant is not relevant. F.S. 847.011(7) clearly regulates the return of such material. It provides inter alia, that once the items are no longer required as evidence, (i.e. after suppression of the evidence because of [43]*43an illegal search, trial or nolle prosequi) any claimant may move the Court for disposition of said property upon written motion and after notice and hearing the Court shall determine if the same was possessed or otherwise dealt with in violation of F. S. 847.011. If so, there is a provision for its destruction. If not, it shall be returned to the claimant if she shows that she is entitled to its possession.

A mere showing that the material is obscene is not enough to require its destruction. At the Evidentiary Hearing, if it is shown that the material is, in fact, obscene it then becomes necessary to determine if such material was held in violation of the Statute. In making that decision the Trial Court should consider St. v Kraham 360 SO.2d 393 (Fla. 1978); Stanley v Georgia 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969(; and F.S. 847.011(b). While the private possession of obscene material is legal, its possession for the purpose of sale or distribution is illegal and subjects such material to destruction by Order of Court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED for an Evidentiary Hearing consistent with this Opinion.

(LOCKETT, J., Circuit Appellate Chief Judge and McNEAL, R., Circuit Judge, concur)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Fla. Supp. 2d 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-porter-flacirct-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack