VALERIANO SUAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Valeriano Suarez challenges his drug conviction based on a defective search warrant that failed to describe the items to be seized with sufficient particularity. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the warrant's failure to specify what evidence was to be seized violated Fourth Amendment and Florida constitutional requirements.
The warrant was invalid because it failed to describe the items to be seized at all, violating the constitutional requirement of specificity. The court rejected treating the omission as a mere technical defect, finding it a substantive failure to comply with particularity requirements, and held that reference to 'methaqualones' in the crime category could not substitute for a proper description of items to be seized.
[1] A search warrant must describe the items to be seized with sufficient particularity to be valid under the Fourth Amendment.
[2] A search warrant must separately state the specific crime being committed and the objects to be seized.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A statement of the specific crime being committed and a statement of the objects to be seized are separate requirements.”
Establishes that crime description and item description cannot be conflated; both are independently required in a valid warrant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice obtained a search warrant using a standard form to search Suarez's premises for narcotics violations. The officer selected crime category 'e' (…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fourth Amendment Particularity Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Valeriano Suarez appeals from a conviction and sentence entered on a plea of nolo contendere where he reserved his right to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a defective warrant. Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b). The trial court, with the respective counsel for the state and defendant, agreed that the ruling on the motion to suppress would be dispositive of the case. The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
An affidavit for search warrant and the search warrant were prepared from standard forms. The standard warrant provides a statement that the named officer “has probable cause to believe and does believe that at the premises described as: - being in _, (city, if any) Dade County, Florida . .. one of the following crimes, as evidenced by-is occurring. ...” (The officer then selects a crime category from a list of a-f and fills in the space provided immediately after each category of crime specifically what crime is occurring or evidence indicating that the crime is occurring). The form warrant continues, “has been committed, or evidence relevant to proving said felony has been committed, is contained therein, to wit: ...” (ten blank lines are then provided, as stated in parentheses immediately below these lines, for the officer to fill in “descriptions of things to be seized”).
The officer filling out the warrant against Suarez selected crime category “e” and filled in the statement of crime as follows:
(e) the laws of the State of Florida related to narcotics or drug abuse are being violated there, to wit: METHAQUA-LONES
The space provided for description of things to be seized was left blank and the words, description of things to be seized, crossed out. The sole issue on appeal is whether the search warrant described the items to be seized with sufficient particularity to be valid under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution (1968). See also § 933.05 Fla.Stat. (1979); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(h)(l)(3). We find that it does not.
A statement of the specific crime being committed and a statement of the objects to be seized are separate requirements. The entry of the word “methaqualones” after the crime category fails to state a crime; the leaving blank of the lines provided to describe the items to be seized, is a failure to describe such items at all. See People v. Bishop, 71 Ill.App.3d 52, 27 Ill.Dec. 181, 388 N.E. 2d 1144 (1979).
We reject the State’s argument that we should overlook the failure to describe at all the items to be seized as a mere technical defect because the reference to “methaqualones” after the crime category was intended as reference to the items to be seized. Not only would such a holding undermine the requirements of specificity, but the testimony of the officer who prepared the search warrant indicates that the failure to specify the evidence to be seized was more than a mere technical error of putting the description on the wrong line. The testimony demonstrates that the officer failed to understand or to comply with the requirement of a specificity:
Q. Have you ever heard that the search warrant must state with specificity the places to be searched and the items to be seized?
A. (No response.)
Q. Have you every heard of that type of thing?
A. Places to be searched?
Q. And the items to be seized.
A. No, sir. Q. You never heard of that?
A. (No response.)
Q. You never heard of that; is that correct?
A. No, sir. That’s correct.
Q. Would it be fair to say that the search warrant does not state with specificity—
A. What is to be seized?
Q. —what is to be seized?
A. Yes.
Q. It is correct, it does not state that?
A. That’s correct.
See, e. g., State v. Pezzella, 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (order did not specify evidence to be suppressed).
Although an affidavit for search warrant was prepared, it fails to cure the defective warrant in that it was neither attached to the search warrant nor incorporated in the warrant by reference. Booze v. State, 291 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 297 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 959, 95 S.Ct. 222, 42 L.Ed.2d 177 (1974); Bloom v. State, 283 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
Reversed and remanded with instructions to discharge the defendant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Glass, 657 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…be inferred from the affidavit in support of the curtilage warrant that the officers were looking for marijuana plants, ‘nowhere in the affidavit do they so state.’ ”) (emphasis added), review denied, 464 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1985). Cf. Suarez v. State, 400 So. 2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“A statement of the specific crime being committed and a statement of the objects to be seized are separate (warrant) requirements .... [T]he leaving blank of the lines provided to describe the items to be seized, is a fail…
-
Riley v. State, 448 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…result. I understand that what we sanction today is a “securing of the premises” after a warrant has been signed by a magistrate, with no actual search to be conducted until receipt of the warrant describing the items to be seized. Suarez v. State, 400 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). I further understand the police jargon “securing the premises” to mean a restraint on movement of persons and things within the place, and no more.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Pezzella, 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Booze v. State, 291 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Bloom v. State, 283 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Booze v. State, 297 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1974)
- Lapsley R. Caldwell v. Caldwell, 297 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1974)
- LaRuffa v. New York, 419 U.S. 959 (U.S. 1974)
- Ellis v. Hawaii, 419 U.S. 959 (U.S. 1974)