State v. Griffis, 86-861

• Decision Date: 26 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-861,86-861
• Citation: 502 So.2d 1356,12 Fla. L. Weekly 628
• Parties: 12 Fla. L. Weekly 628 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Charles Robert GRIFFIS, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1356

502 So.2d 1356

12 Fla. L. Weekly 628

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Charles Robert GRIFFIS, Appellee.

No. 86-861.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fifth District.

Feb. 26, 1987.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kevin Kitpatrick Carson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Gregory W. Eisenmenger, Merritt Island, for appellee.

ORFINGER, Judge.

The trial court suppressed evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, on the grounds that the officer serving the warrant did so while outside his jurisdiction. The State appeals and we affirm.

Based on sworn information that certain items reported stolen in Titusville were at the residence of the defendant in Cocoa, Florida, Officer Mutter of the Titusville Police Department applied for and obtained a search warrant to search the defendant's residence. The search warrant directed

THE SHERIFF OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, OR HIS DEPUTIES AND ALL TITUSVILLE POLICE OFFICERS IN BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

to search the described premises for the named merchandise. Officer Mutter proceeded to the defendant's residence in Cocoa accompanied by Cocoa and Titusville police officers, and served the warrant on the defendant. The trial court found the search invalid because the warrant was not properly served, and suppressed the evidence.

The State concedes that statutes authorizing searches and seizures must be strictly construed, State ex rel. Wilson v. Quigg, 154 Fla. 348, 17 So.2d 697 (1944), but argues that sections 933.07 ¹ and 933.08, FLORIDA STATUTES (1985)² authorize a municipal officer named in a search warrant to execute the warrant outside the territorial limits of his municipality. We cannot agree.

It is true that section 933.07 authorizes a judge to issue a search warrant to "any police officer." However, with certain limited exceptions not applicable here, a municipal police officer has no power to act as a police officer outside the territorial limits of his municipality. See, e.g., State v. Phoenix, 428 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), affirmed, 455 So.2d 1024 (Fla.1984); State v. Gonzalez, 447 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), where the court affirmed a trial court order suppressing evidence seized by City of Miami police officers outside the limits of the City of Miami. See also 70 Am.Jur.2d Sheriffs, Police and Constables § 57 (1987). Therefore, the phrase "any police officer" as used in that section must be construed to mean any police officer with power to act. There is no statute which authorizes a police officer to serve a search warrant outside the boundaries of his territorial jurisdiction. Cf. § 901.15, Fla.Stat. (1985) (municipal officers authorized to make warrantless arrest outside their jurisdiction while in fresh pursuit).

Other courts have addressed this problem, but have found various reasons for upholding the search. In Nofs v. State, 295 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) the court upheld a search warrant served in Gulfport, Florida by a City of St. Petersburg police officer because the warrant was directed as well to the Sheriff and/or Deputy Sheriffs of Pinellas County, and the police officer who served the warrant was also a bonded deputy sheriff. In State v. Hills, 428 So.2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) the court found that the police officers who served the warrant outside the limits of their city were also special investigators of the State Attorney's office, thus authorized by section 27.255, Florida Statutes to serve warrants anywhere within their judicial circuit. Important in these opinions is the recognition of the principle that without some other valid basis, the execution of a search warrant by a police officer outside of...