Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

80 So. 2d 683

Bonner v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 3, 1955

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1955-06-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“`Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement.'”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 90 So. 2d 118 - Joyner v. City of Lakeland, 110 So. 2d 460 - Seymore v. State

““Being a one story frame dwelling house painted white trim in Green being located on East Cross Street in Pensacola, Florida, said house bearing number 200 the said house being on the north side of East Cross Street facing South and all building within its premises in Pensacola, County of Escambia, State of Florida.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 110 So. 2d 460 - Seymore v. State

Relies on Jackson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1955-06-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1973

8 state decisions

40195519601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

TPIORNAL, Justice.

¶1Ollie Bonner was convicted by a jury in the Court of Record of Escambia County of the offense of unlawfully “Removing, Depositing and Concealing Untaxed Alcoholic Beverages”. He appeals from a sentence of eighteen months in the State Prison.

¶2Appellant relies heavily on an alleged defect in a search warrant and supporting affidavit which described the, premises to be searched as follows:

“Being a one story frame dwelling house painted white trim in Green being located on East Cross Street in Pensacola, Florida, said house bearing number 200 the said house being on the north side of East Cross Street facing South and all building within its premises in Pensacola, County of Escambia, State of Florida.”

¶3It is shown that the premises are located outside the city limits of Pensacola. It is contended that the inclusion of Pensacola as a part of the address invalidates the search warrant; that all evidence obtained by the search, to wit: seizure of sixteen gallons of moonshine, should be expunged from the record, thereby leaving the prosecution with no evidence of the offense charged.

¶4■ It is shown that there is only one Cross Street in Escambia County and there is no evidence that the searching officers had the slightest difficulty in locating the address described in the warrant. Indeed, appellant himself actually testified that he had lived at this place “ever since he had been in Pensacola

¶5We are thoroughly aware of the traditional prescriptions guarding against unlawful searches and seizures and we adhere to them. However, it is equally well established that “Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officer unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement.” See 47 Am.Jur. 522, Sufficiency of Description, Sec. 35; Jackson v. State, 87 Fla. 262, 99 So. 548. Such a description therefore meets all of the historical safeguards. The ‘ affidavit and warrant in the instant case were sufficient to sustain the search.

¶6Reversal is also sought on the ground that the evidence was insufficient.to support the verdict and judgment. It was the province of the jury to resolve any evidentiary conflicts. We find that the jury had adequate evidence before it to support the verdict of guilty.

¶7Judgment affirmed.

DREW, C. J., TERRELL, J., and JONES, Associate Justice, concur.
/80/so2d/683 · .json · Public domain