State v. Gallo, s. 72--896
| Decision Date | 08 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 72--896,72--897,s. 72--896 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Anthony E. GALLO, Appellee. STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Richard KRANZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Jerry D. Bell, St. Petersburg, for appellee Gallo.
James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellee Kranz.
The lower court entered its order suppressing as evidence a particularly described television set on the ground that the search warrant and supporting affidavit did not properly describe the premises searched. Appellant brings this interlocutory appeal to review that order.
The search warrant and affidavit described the apartment house in great detail, and the particular apartment as being 'located on the second floor, third door on the north side from the stairway, the door of which is painted pink with the number '10' affixed, . . . and said apartment or room '10' being under the custody and control of one Richard H. Kranz.'
The discrepancy arises by virtue of the number on the door of the apartment. The search warrant and affidavit stated that the number posted on the door of the apartment to be searched was number '10', whereas the apartment searched at the location described in the warrant and affidavit was designated as No. '11'.
The executing officer testified that he was guided to the particular apartment by information that he had received, and that the apartment searched was located on the north side of the building, second floor, three doors from the west, which was the only apartment located at that particular location. When he went into that apartment both appellees were inside and the television set described in the search warrant was in plain view in the premises. Subunit No. '10' was never approached by the officers.
The description in the search warrant of the place to be searched, and which was in fact searched, would have been sufficiently specific without reference to the number on the door. Therefore, the incorrect designation of the number was surplusage; State v. Lemon, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 322; United States v. Contee, D.C.D.C.1959, 170 F.Supp. 26; United States v. Pisano, S.D.N.Y.1961, 191 F.Supp. 861; United States v. Sklaroff, S.D.Fla. 1971, 323 F.Supp. 296, 319; see Annotation, 11 A.L.R.3rd 1330; and was of such a minor nature as not to invalidate the search warrant; Bonner v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 683; Smith v. State, Fl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schultz
...3rd DCA 1979); Freyre v. State, 362 So.2d 989 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); Smith v. State, 333 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); State v. Gallo, 279 So.2d 71 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1973); Riley v. State, 266 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); State v. Jackson, 240 So.2d 88 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970). For the most part, th......
-
Mills v. State, 20
...no more than the street address of the building and the name of the party whose unit is to be searched. See, e. g., State v. Gallo, 279 So.2d 71 (Fla.App.1973); People v. Mayfeild, 69 Ill.App.2d 388, 217 N.E.2d 100 (1966); In Re G., 64 Misc.2d 129, 314 N.Y.S.2d 547 (N.Y.Cty.Family Ct. 1970)......
-
Nofs v. State
...and therefore, such reference was surplusage and can be disregarded. State v. Lemon, Fla.App.2d 1968, 212 So.2d 322; State v. Gallo, Fla.App.2d 1973, 279 So.2d 71; United States v. Contee, D.C.D.C.1959, 170 F.Supp. The evidence showed that the place searched had its main entrance on the sec......
-
State v. Lomack, 98-3115.
...250 (Fla.1984), Swain v. State, 670 So.2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), Clapsaddle v. State, 545 So.2d 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), State v. Gallo, 279 So.2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), Carr v. State, 529 So.2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and Baum v. State, 404 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), or, alternatively......