From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ross

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 19, 1985
471 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

No. 84-2590.

June 19, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Indian River County, L.B. Vocelle, J.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert S. Jaegers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


We affirm the trial court's order suppressing evidence seized under a search warrant. Because of a word processing error the warrant failed to contain a description of the specific property for which the search was authorized. Such facial invalidity precludes resort by the state to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule enunciated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). Indeed, the court in that case indicated that the exception should not be available where the warrant is facially deficient "in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized" on the basis that the executing officer cannot, under such circumstances, "reasonably presume [the warrant] to be valid." 104 S.Ct. at 3422.

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Ross

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 19, 1985
471 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

State v. Ross

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, v. ROBERT ROSS, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jun 19, 1985

Citations

471 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Sims v. State

Indeed, the United States Supreme Court in that case specifically stated that the exception should not be…

Green v. State

See id. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3420-21. This is so because the executing officers, relying on a warrant which…