Joyner v. City of Lakeland
| Decision Date | 24 October 1956 |
| Citation | 90 So.2d 118 |
| Parties | Lennie Lee JOYNER, Petitioner, v. CITY OF LAKELAND, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John W. Stanford of Oxford & Oxford, Lakeland, for petitioner.
J. Hardin Peterson, Jr., Lakeland, for respondent.
This matter arises upon a petition for certiorari seeking review of an order of the circuit court affirming a judgment of the municipal court of the City of Lakeland, Florida, finding petitioner guilty of possessing lottery paraphernalia.
Although certiorari must be denied under the circumstances here disclosed, we have seen fit to depart in this case from our custom of denying certiorari without opinion, in view of the importance of the matter presented to the administration of criminal justice.
On March 25, 1955, a search warrant was issued reading as follows:
'In the Municipal Court of the City of Lakeland, Florida.
John Doe Defendant.
'SEARCH WARRANT
'In the name of and by Authority of the State of Florida
'To: E. T. Pickett Jr., A police officer of the City of Lakeland, Florida.
'Whereas, C. B. Wallis of the City of Lakeland, Florida has this day made oath before me, stating as follows:
'1. That he is a citizen of the City of Lakeland, Florida.
'2. That he has reason to believe and does believe that John Doe has in his possession, unlawfully, and/or for the purpose of sale in the City of Lakeland, Polk County, Florida, intoxicating liquor, (which County has heretofore voted against the sale of intoxicating liquor,) or on which the revenue tax of the State of Florida has not been paid; and that said intoxicating liquor is located at 524 West Memorial Blvd., in the City of Lakeland, Polk County, Florida.
'3. That the aforesaid belief of affiant is based on the following facts: C. B. Wallis did on the 23rd day of March, 1955 purchase one half pint of untaxed whiskey from John Doe upon the premises of 524 West Memorial Blvd. and did pay him $1.00 (one dollar) in US monies for said * * * half pint of untaxed whisky. Said 524 West Memorial Blvd. being a one story wood frame dwelling house painted white with open front porch and black asphalt shingle roof. Said house has an unpainted front screen door and is located on the South side of the street and faces North. Said house is the fourth house on the South side of the street East of intersection of N. Texas Ave. and West Memorial Blvd. contrary to the ordinances of the said City in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of said City.
'4. J. W. McPhail a Police Officer of the City of Lakeland, Polk County, Florida, having made application for the issuance of a Search Warrant to search the said John Doe and/or the said premises, which premises the affiant believes that the said John Doe has in his control and possession, for the purpose of entering said premises and searching said John Doe and/or said premises for the said intoxicating liquor therein and thereon.
'These are therefore, to command you to apprehend and search the said John Doe, and to enter and search the said premises in the possession of or occupied by the said John Doe and to seize any and all intoxicating liquor found in the unlawful possession of the said John Doe or upon said premises for the purpose of sale in said City and County, or on which the revenue tax of the State of Florida has not been paid, and bring the said John Doe together with any intoxicating liquor so found before me to be dealt with according to law.
'I expressly authorize that this warrant may be executed by being served either in the day-time or the nighttime as the exigencies of the case demand and require.
'Given under my hand this 25 day of March A.D. 1955.
'/s/ James S. Welch
Municipal Judge of the City of Lakeland, Florida'
On April 2, 1955, this warrant was executed and return was made as follows:
County of Polk
City of Lakeland.
'Received this Search Warrant on the 2 day of April, A.D., 1955 and served same upon the 2 day of April, A.D., 1955, by reading the contents thereof to Lennie Lee Joyner upon said premises and explaining the contents of said search warrant, and also furnishing to him a copy thereof; and after searching said premises as directed by and described in said search warrant, there was found thereon the following articles, to-wit: Five pads with Lottery Numbers on the pads. Fourteen sheets of paper With Lottery Numbers on them. $191.00 in Paper Money and $17.55 in Silver Money. Said articles were seized under and by virtue of said search warrant and taken into the possession of the undersigned; that said articles so seized are inventoried as above stated and said inventory is made a part of this return, a copy of said inventory was left with the said Lennie Lee Joyner 'Witness my hand and sworn to this the 2 day of April, A.D., 1955.
's/ E. T. Pickett, Jr.
'Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 2 day of Apr, 1955.
s/ A. M. Davis, Clerk
Notary Public, in and for Said State and County. Municipal Judge-Clerk-City of Lakeland, Florida.'
Petitioner first contends that the search warrant quoted above does not sufficiently describe the place to be searched, in that paragraph three of the warrant does not actually show that the place to be searched is in the city of Lakeland, Florida. Of course, the second paragraph of the warrant makes clear reference to that city, and reading the two paragraphs together there could be little doubt in the mind of the officer to whom the warrant was delivered for execution that the place to be searched was within the city of Lakeland. The warrant should be read as a whole, Lowrey v. U. S., 8 Cir., 161 F.2d 30, certiorari denied, 331 U.S. 849, 67 S.Ct. 1737, 91 L.Ed. 1858. In Bonner v. State, Fla., 80 So.2d 683, 684, we stated in part: "Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement." It is evident that the warrant here under consideration meets this test.
Petitioner next urges that the facts recited in the search warrant are insufficient to show that probable cause existed to believe the house to be searched was being used for any unlawful purpose within the jurisdiction of the municipal court of Lakeland. He contends that because of the use of the word 'premises' in the warrant it is impossible to determine where the alleged unlawful sale occurred, i. e., whether inside or outside of the house. Referring again to the search warrant, we note that while the purchase of untaxed whiskey was alleged to have taken place 'upon the premises of 524 West Memorial Blvd.' this general statement is immediately qualified by the words 'Said 524 West Memorial Blvd. being a one story wood frame dwelling house painted white with open...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Maude
...are United States v. Howard, 138 F.Supp. 376, 380-381 (D.Md.1956); In re Heckman, 35 F.2d 209, 210 (W.D.N.Y.1929); and Joyner v. Lakeland, 90 So.2d 118, 122 (Fla.1956). 64 Supra note 65 See note 63, supra. 66 United States v. Henkel, 451 F.2d 777, 780-781 (3d Cir. 1971); Anglin v. Director,......
-
State v. Montoya
...P.2d 819 (1966); State v. Blackwell, 49 N.J.Super. 451, 140 A.2d 226 (1958); State v. Struce, 1 S.W.2d 841 (Mo.1927); Joyner v. City of Lakeland, 90 So.2d 118 (Fla.1956). Judge Sutin attempts to distinguish the contrary cases by asserting that only facially inadequate warrants, as opposed t......
-
Polakoff v. State
...DCA 1973); see also Booze v. State, 291 So.2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 297 So.2d 836 (Fla.1974).13 See, Joyner v. City of Lakeland, 90 So.2d 118 (Fla.1956); Carlton v. State, 418 So.2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), approved, 449 So.2d 250 (Fla.1984); Ludwig v. State, 215 So.2d 898 (......
-
Carter v. State
...of such municipality, such as Tampa, see Farragut v. City of Tampa, 1945, 156 Fla. 107, 22 So.2d 645; and Lakeland, see Joyner v. City of Lakeland, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 118.6 This of course does not include arrests made by a peace officer under sub-sections (1) and (4) of F.S. Sec. 901.15 F.S......