Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Samuel SANDERS, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-05-04
Citations: 431 So. 2d 1034
Docket Number: No. 82-635
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Samuel SANDERS, Appellee.
Judges: LETTS, C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 431
Pages: 1034–1036

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Samuel SANDERS, Appellee.
No. 82-635.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 4, 1983.
Rehearing Denied June 15, 1983.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stewart J. Bellus, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Donald P. Kohl, of Kohl, Springer, Springer, Varner, Mighdoll & Salnick, Palm Springs, for appellee.

Opinion:
DOWNEY, Judge.
The state is appealing from an order suppressing evidence.
A shoplifting jewelry theft occurred at a Jefferson's department store on December 27, 1980. During the investigation of this jewelry heist the police developed two suspects who were arrested on or about December 30, 1980. One suspect admitted committing the crime and said he had sold the stolen jewelry to appellee, Samuel Sanders, for $300 and some drugs. The thief also said he had sold everything he had stolen in the past to appellee, among which was some stereo equipment. In pursuance of their investigation of the jewelry theft the police applied for a search warrant specifically describing the things they expected to find at appellee's residence as eight rings and dilaudid. The warrant that was issued authorized the officers to search for stolen rings and for dilaudid and other dangerous drugs. When they executed the search warrant the officers were unable to find any jewelry or drugs; however, they did find in plain view two pieces of electronic equipment they had probable cause to believe were stolen property and they seized those two pieces. Thereafter, the officers arrested appellee and obtained from him a signed consent form authorizing them to search appellee's residence for other stolen electronic equipment. At a hear- mg on a motion to suppress evidence the circuit court found that the officers had reason to believe they would find stolen electronic equipment in appellee's domicile because of what the thief had told them and that the search warrant should have listed such equipment in order to permit its lawful seizure; since the warrant did not list electronic equipment, it was deficient and did not authorize the seizure of such equipment. The court also found that the unlawful seizure tainted the subsequent "consent" search and ordered all material seized to be suppressed. This appeal followed.
We hold that the order of suppression was erroneous because there was no demonstration that the officers conducting the initial search had reason to believe ap-pellee's domicile would at that time contain stolen property other than the stolen jewelry and dangerous drugs; the information relative to the thief's history of selling everything he had ever stolen to appellee did not lead to the officers' anticipating they would find stolen electronic equipment at the time they searched appellee's domicile.
The initial seizure of the two pieces of stolen equipment was lawful because the officers' discovery of that equipment was not anticipated at that time. The officers' presence in the domicile was lawful because it was accomplished pursuant to the search warrant. The subsequent discovery of two pieces of equipment, one of which had no serial number and which tallied with a general description that the thief had given, gave the officers probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen and authorized its seizure. If there is probable cause to believe unanticipated property discovered in searched premises is stolen property or is otherwise contraband, then it may be seized even though it is not described in the search warrant authorizing an intrusion onto the searched premises. Ludwig v. State, 215 So.2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Partin v. State, 277 So.2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The subsequent consent search was equally valid.
Because the discovery of the stolen equipment was not anticipated, the order of suppression was erroneous and is reversed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, C.J., concurs.
GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.