Case ID: so2d_389/html/0213-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Thomas RUSSO, Jr., Appellee.
    No. 80-1.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    July 16, 1980.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 12, 1980.
    Michael J. Satz, State’s Atty., and Teresa Beazley Widmer, Asst. State’s Atty., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The state appeals from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence. The evidence suppressed was obtained by virtue of a search warrant. The basis for suppression was the absence of language in the search warrant specifically requiring that the seized property be brought before the court as required by Subsection 933.07, Florida Statutes (1979). No prejudice to appellee is shown by the record nor is it anywhere alleged.

The rule in Florida is that substantial compliance with the statutory requirements applicable to search warrants is sufficient where no prejudice is shown. State v. Laiser, 322 So.2d 490 (Fla.1975); State v. Richardson, 331 So.2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We find substantial compliance here.

We therefore reverse the order granting the motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.