Gerardi v. State
| Decision Date | 14 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--716,73--716 |
| Citation | 307 So.2d 853 |
| Parties | Lawrence S. GERARDI, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles J. Cullom, Orlando, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant was charged with possession of hashish and drug paraphernalia in violation of §§ 404.02 and 404.041, F.S. 1971, respectively. After pleading not guilty, appellant moved to quash a search warrant and suppress the evidence seized by the police. Upon denial of said motions he pleaded nolo contendere to possession of hashish and was sentenced to three years in prison. The sole point on appeal concerns the trial court's alleged error in denying the motions to quash the search warrant and suppress the seized evidence.
The question involved here is whether § 933.18(5), F.S.1971, prohibits the issuance of a search warrant based upon an affidavit which shows that there are reasonable grounds to believe contraband will be delivered to an addressee at a private dwelling on a specific future date which is within the 10 day time limit set by § 933.05, F.S.1971. So far as we have been able to determine the question has never been decided in Florida, although the First District Court of Appeal recognized it as 'an intriguing question' in Rutskin v. State, Fla.App.1972, 260 So.2d 525, 527.
The application for the search warrant in this case consisted of two documents, both dated December 6, 1972. The first is a form Affidavit For Search Warrant bearing, among others, the printed words 'there is now being kept on said premises (the appellant's home, which was described by means of words typewritten on the form affidavit) certain _ _.' In the space following the printed word 'certain' the words 'PACKAGE CONTAINING HASHISH' are typewritten. Thereafter appear the printed words 'which is now being kept and used in violation of the laws of the State of Florida.' Attached to the form affidavit is a completely typewritten affidavit signed by a deputy sheriff and witnessed by a judge. In the typewritten affidavit the deputy sheriff swore that on December 5, 1972, three United States customs officials, in the presence of the affiant and of a United States postal inspector at a United States post office, had opened a package which bore a customs declaration sticker describing its contents as a bottle of wine. 1 The package had been mailed from the Netherlands on November 9, 1972. It was addressed to the appellant and his wife and was awaiting delivery. The opened package disclosed a ceramic bottle. Tests revealed that the contents of the bottle was hashish. The bottle was thereafter marked with fluorescent powder and repackaged. The federal agents and the affiant agreed upon a definite procedure for delivery. The package would remain in the custody of a postal inspector until the following day, when it would be turned over to the appropriate route delivery man. During the delivery affiant would have the premises under visual surveillance. After delivery to the occupant of the dwelling, but before execution of the search warrant, the affiant would telephonically contact the judge who issued the search warrant and provide him 'with confirming information as to the procedure followed on transmittal and receipt of said package.' After receiving both the form and typewritten affidavits, the judge signed a search warrant directing the sheriff's department to enter and search the appellant's home and seize the package of hashish.
About an hour after receiving the search warrant, the deputy sheriff telephoned the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kostelec v. State
...history made clear that legislature intended that warrant issue only when the crime had already been committed); Gerardi v. State, 307 So.2d 853 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975) (anticipatory search warrant violated state statute--which was later amended--that permitted a warrant to issue for the sea......
-
Bernie v. State
...of an unreasonable search and seizure, relying on the provisions of section 933.18, Florida Statutes (1983), and Gerardi v. State, 307 So.2d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Section 933.18, Florida Statutes (1983), concerns the issuance of a search warrant for a private home and 933.18 When warrant......
-
Com. v. Soares
...requirement that warrants be executed "forthwith" does not preclude issuance of anticipatory warrants). Compare Gerardi v. State, 307 So.2d 853, 855 (Fla.App.1975). We are reinforced in our conclusion by the Legislature's explicit disclaimer in G.L. c. 276, § 1, of any intent to impair the ......
-
State v. Bernie
...it was seized as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure. At the hearing on the motion, the Bernies relied on Gerardi v. State, 307 So.2d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), and section 933.18, Florida Statutes (1983), to support their proposition that the warrant was invalid for lack of probab......