JAYSON WINTERS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
A search warrant must state with particularity the property to be seized, and incorporating an affidavit does not cure a deficient warrant.
Defendant appealed a conviction after his motion to suppress evidence seized under a warrant was denied. The warrant only authorized the officer to 's…
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
[*263] PER CURIAM.
Defendant Jayson Winters appeals the final judgment of conviction, and the trial court’s decision denying his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant which stated only that the officer was to “search diligently for stolen property”. We reverse.
A description is considered sufficiently particular when it enables the searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify the items authorized to be seized. State v. Showcase Products Inc., 501 So. 2d 11, 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (quoting United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F. 2d 1343 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 814, 104 S.Ct. 69, 78 L.Ed.2d 83 (1983). The purpose of the particularity requirement is to bar exploratory searches by placing limits upon the officer’s discretion in executing a search warrant. Carlton v. State, 449 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1984). The failure of this warrant to limit the scope of the officer’s search renders it constitutionally infirm.
The trial court apparently relied upon information contained in an attached affidavit to satisfy the constitutional requirement that search warrants state with particularity the property to be seized. In so doing, the trial court committed reversible error. See Carlton, supra; State v. Schrager, 472 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA1985).
We reverse and remand with instructions to vacate defendant’s conviction.
ANSTEAD, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Chevron Chem. Co. v. Gilmore, 464 U.S. 814 (U.S. 1983)
- Leach v. United States Postal Serv., 464 U.S. 814 (U.S. 1983)
- Carlton v. State, 449 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Showcase Prods., Inc., 501 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- State v. Schrager, 472 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)