De Lancy v. City of Miami
| Decision Date | 17 January 1950 |
| Citation | 43 So.2d 856,14 A.L.R.2d 602 |
| Parties | DE LANCY et al. v. CITY OF MIAMI. BROOME v. CITY OF MIAMI. RUBIN v. CITY OF MIAMI. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Roberts, Holland & Strickland, Miami, for petitioners.
J. W. Watson, Jr., and John D. Marsh, Miami, for respondent.
In the case of DeLancy v. The City of Miami the petitioner challenges the manner of executing the search warrant which we shall presently discuss, while in all three cases the petitioners urge the insufficiency of the affidavits forming bases for the warrants.
We shall devote our comment to the question common to all three petitions for certiorari to review judgments of the circuit court affirming judgments of conviction in the municipal court because our investigation and examination convince us that the affidavits were fatally defective, and having this view about the very foundation of the warrants, there appears no need to determine the propriety of the service of them.
Substance of the affidavits was (1) that the affiants believed and had good reason to believe that in a certain building gambling was being conducted by unknown persons and (2) that the affiants' 'reason for this belief [was] that [they had] learned from an investigation' that such gambling was being carried on. It is the second statement with which we must find fault.
Section 22 of the Declaration of Rights, F.S.A., protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures and specifically provides that no search warrant shall issue except 'upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place * * * to be searched and the person * * * and things * * * to be seized.' Of like effect are the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The sole question for our decision is whether the affidavits from which we have quoted set out sufficient facts, supporting the belief of the affiants, to establish in the mind of the issuing officer probable cause that the laws against gambling were being violated. In other words, can one procuring the writ simply say that he has formed his belief from what he has learned from some sort of investigation by some person or other, the officer not being informed how or by whom the investigation was made, how the affiant came by the intelligence, whether the information he, or, for that matter, his informant, received was hearsay or mere rumor?
We fail to see how the affidavits now under consideration were any stronger...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. State
...that an individual criminal may go without punishment.' Collins v. State, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 700. See also DeLancy v. City of Miami, Fla.1950, 43 So.2d 856, 14 A.L.R.2d 602; Borrego v. State, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d We revert now to the facts in the case sub judice to determine whether the ......
-
Chacon v. State
...same rules of procedure that apply to liquor Search Warrants also apply to Bolita Search Warrants. In the case of De Lancy v. City of Miami, Fla., 43 So.2d 856, 14 A.L.R.2d 602, this Court cited the Cooper case supra, with approval. The first Headnote in the De Lancy case being as 'Affidavi......
-
Leveson v. State
...Page 180. See also, Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217; Carnagio v. State, 106 Fla. 222, 143 So. 164; DeLancy v. City of Miami, Fla.1950, 43 So.2d 856, 14 A.L.R.2d 602. The instant affidavit, as quoted above, speaks for itself in falling short of meeting the minimum statutory and co......
-
Collins v. State
...F.S.A. is inalienable and must be protected at the risk that an individual criminal may go without punishment. De Lancy v. City of Miami, Fla.1950, 43 So.2d 856, 14 A.L.R.2d 602; Borrego v. State, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d We agree with the conclusions of the trial court that when the police offic......
-
The Broken Fourth Amendment Oath.
...(Ind. 1927); Brown v. Kelley, 20 Mich. 27, 33-34 (1870); People v. Heffron, 19 N.W. 170, 171 (Mich. 1884); De Lancy v. City of Miami, 43 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 1950); Elardo v. State, 145 So. 615, 616 (Miss. 1933); State v. Arregui, 254 P. 788, 794 (Idaho 1927); State v. Miller, 266 S.W. 102......