Samuel v. State
| Decision Date | 16 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 38072,38072 |
| Citation | 222 So.2d 3 |
| Parties | Nathaniel SAMUEL, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Walter E. Gwinn, Miami, for petitioner.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Charles D. Edelstein, Asst. State Atty., for respondent.
This cause is before the court on certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Samuel v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 55. We have jurisdiction under § 4(2) Article V, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. to consider the question of law presented, which has been certified by the appellate court as one of great public interest.
The question concerns the validity Vel non of a search warrant that authorizes the search of a building as well as
'* * * the person or all persons therein who shall be connected with, or suspected of being connected with the operating or maintaining of said gaming or gambling games, devices, equipment, paraphernalia * * *.'
The petitioner contended at the trial and appellate levels, and here contends, that the failure of the search warrant to describe with particularity the person or persons to be searched renders it fatally defective and void Ab initio under both the statute, § 933.05, Fla.Stat.1967, F.S.A., and the Constitution, § 22, Declaration of Rights, of this state. Relying on its previous decision in State v. Cook, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 18, the appellate court upheld the validity of the search warrant. We agree.
As used in the warrant, the words 'suspected of being connected with' the gambling operations mean that the officer may search a person found on the premises covered by the search warrant--the issuance of which constitutes a judicial determination that there is probable cause to believe that illegal gambling operations are being engaged in thereon--when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such person is connected with the gambling operation. Cf. State v. Outten, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 392, in which this court upheld as valid an arrest for 'suspicion of auto theft' in circumstances that would lead a reasonable man to believe that a felony had been committed by the person arrested. See also Dunnavant v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 871, in which we defined 'probable cause' as
'* * * a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.'
The purpose sought to be achieved by Sec. 22, Declaration of Rights, Fla. Const., has been many times stated by this court and need not be repeated here. Essentially, it declares that the question of 'probable cause' for the issuance of a search warrant to invade the privacy of our dwelling or person is a judicial question that must be determined by a judge or magistrate before a valid warrant may issue. See Thurman v. State, 1934, 116 Fla. 426, 156 So. 484, 488. A warrant issued solely to search the person of one suspected of having committed a crime would undoubtedly be required to identify such person by name or description in order to be valid on its face. But a warrant to search a building is not rendered invalid by its failure to identify the owner or operator of the premises. He may be named in the warrant If known, see Church v. State, 1942, 151 Fla. 24, 9 So.2d 164; Harvey v. Drake, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 214. And he may be 'seized' on the premises--that is,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Platou
...1973); State v. Procce, 5 Conn.Cir. 637, 260 A.2d 413 (1969); Willis v. State, 122 Ga.App. 455, 177 S.E.2d 487 (1970); Samuel v. State, 222 So.2d 3 (Fla.1969); State v. Pugh, 69 Ill.App.2d 312, 217 N.E.2d 557 (1966); State v. Loudermilk, 208 Kan. 893, 494 P.2d 1174 (1972); State v. DeSimone......
-
People v. Finn
...the police search all persons present on the premises they endanger both themselves and the search they are making.' Also: Samuel v. State, 222 So.2d 3 (Florida, 1969); Guzman v. State, 461 S.W.2d 602 (Texas Cr.App., 1970); Willis v. State, 122 Ga.App. 455, 177 S.E.2d 487 (Georgia, In apply......
-
People v. Easterbrook
...69 Ill.App.2d 312, 217 N.E.2d 557, involving persons present in an apartment in which drugs were being used and sold; in Samuel v. State, 222 So.2d 3 (Fla.Sup.Ct.), involving a gambling operation in a building; in Johnson v. State, 440 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.Cr.App.), involving an apartment in whi......
-
Com. v. Smith
...v. Bradbury, 109 N.H. 105, 106--107, 243 A.2d 302 (1968); State v. Carufel, 106 R.I. 739, 748--749, 263 A.2d 686 (1970).5 Samuel v. State, 222 So.2d 3, 5 (Fla.1969). Willis v. State, 122 Ga.App. 455, 458--459, 177 S.E.2d 487 (1970). People v. Pugh, 69 Ill.App.2d 312, 316, 217 N.E.2d 557 (19......