Panzavecchia v. State, 66-939
| Decision Date | 08 August 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 66-939,66-939 |
| Citation | 201 So.2d 762 |
| Parties | John E. PANZAVECCHIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack J. Taffer, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., BARKDULL, J., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge.
Appellant was charged with a violation of § 404.02(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. He was convicted and sentenced in a non-jury proceeding and seeks review, contending: First, that the trial judge committed error in failing to grant his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search warrant, based on an admitted faulty affidavit. Second, that the trial court committed error in receiving the alleged testimony in support of the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued. Third, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
The search warrant in the instant cause was issued for the search of a dwelling house. It was conceded by the State, and so found by the trial court, that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was insufficient as a matter of law. However, the State contended that, pursuant to the provisions of § 933.06, Fla.Stat., 1 F.S.A., it had a right to offer additional evidence, which it contended it did before the judge who issued the warrant in support thereof. On this appeal, the appellant contends that going behind this affidavit, upon which the search warrant was issued for search of a dwelling house, violated the provisions of § 933.18, Fla.Stat., 2 F.S.A. We agree with the appellant.
§ 933.06 and § 933.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., were originally enacted at the same Session of the Legislature. § 933.06, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., relates Generally to search warrants, and § 933.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., relates Specifically to the search of a dwelling house. There is no dispute on this record that the premises searched was a dwelling house and the residence of the appellant. We hold that an affidavit in support of a search warrant for a dwelling house must show probable cause on the face thereof and that the State is not permitted to support the affidavit with additional evidence, as permitted by § 933.06, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. It is reasonable to assume that the Legislature intended, when it enacted the original statutes (which were the forerunners of the present sections) to require a more strict procedure for obtaining the search of a dwelling house than the procedure to be available for general searches. It has long been established that a man's home is his castle (see: Jackson v. State, 87 Fla. 262, 99 So. 548; Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217; Thurman v. State, 116 Fla. 426, 156 So. 484) and it would be an encroachment on this right of peaceable possession, guaranteed by § 22, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., to condone the issuance of a search warrant under circumstances as indicated herein. Further, it is a general rule of statutory construction that when the Legislature enacts two laws relating to the same general subject matter, one specific and one general, the specific will control over the general. See: Adams v. Culver, Fla.1959, 111 So.2d 665; St. Joe Paper Company v. Ray, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 646. It is apparent that the Legislature was not content to rely on this general proposition as, in § 933.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., it specifically provided: 'No search warrant shall issue under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Filmon v. State
...217 (1932); Pesce v. State, 288 So.2d 264 (Fla.App.4th, 1974); Gelis v. State, 249 So.2d 509 (Fla.App.2nd, 1971); Panzavecchia v. State, 201 So.2d 762 (Fla.App.3rd, 1967), and as a federal constitutional matter. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra; Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1969......
-
Swartz v. State
...search warrants for the search of things or premises other than a private dwelling. (See Dunnavant v. State, supra; Panzavecchia v. State, Fla.App.3rd 1967, 201 So.2d 762; Wolff v. State, Fla.App.3d 1974, 291 So.2d 15; and U.S. v. McVean, 5th Cir. 1974, 436 F.2d In addition to contending th......
-
Croteau v. State
...Pesce v. State, 288 So.2d 264 (Fla.App.4th Dist.1974); Gelis v. State, 249 So.2d 509 (Fla.App.2d Dist.1971); Panzavecchia v. State, 201 So.2d 762 (Fla.App.3d Dist.1967). In Florida, the exclusionary rule is not merely a judicial construct but is written into the Constitution itself. 'Articl......
-
United States v. McVean, 30330 Summary Calendar.
...to believe that one of specific violations enumerated in § 933.18 is occurring or has occurred in the house. See Panzavecchia v. State, Fla.App., 3rd Dist. 1967, 201 So. 2d 762. McVean argues that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued alleged a violation of the Florida drug......