Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 933.05 (2025)

Issuance in blank prohibited.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

933.05 Issuance in blank prohibited.—A search warrant cannot be issued except upon probable cause supported by affidavit or affidavits, naming or describing the person, place, or thing to be searched and particularly describing the property or thing to be seized; no search warrant shall be issued in blank, and any such warrant shall be returned within 10 days after issuance thereof, except that a search warrant issued for a computer, a computer system, or an electronic device, as those terms are defined in s. 815.03, that is in the actual possession of a law enforcement agency at the time such warrant is issued shall be returned to the court within 45 days after issuance thereof.

History.—s. 5, ch. 9321, 1923; CGL 8507; s. 7, ch. 2025-176.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Carlton v. State, 449 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Carlton v. State, 449 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1984). · cites it 4× “We simply cannot uphold the argument that the validity of a search warrant should depend, in large part, on whether the issuing magistrate had the ability and information to describe the property with a greater degree of particularity than he did.”

Power v. State, 605 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1992). · cites it 2× “1969); § 933.05, Fla. Stat. (1989). We reject Power's claims that the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of allegedly irrelevant physical evidence including the knife, [8] gun, and gloves found in the maroon bag that was close to Power when he was arrested and an…”

Ex Parte Jenkins, 26 So. 3d 464 (Ala. 2009). · cites it 2× “We simply cannot uphold the argument that the validity of a search warrant should depend, in large part, on whether the issuing magistrate had the ability and information to describe the property with a greater degree of particularity than he did.”

State v. Carson, 482 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). · cites it 4× “At the hearing on the motion, defendants argued that because the exhibits and the affidavit in support of the search warrant were never physically attached to the warrant, the warrant was facially defective, in that the place to be searched was not described as required by…”

State v. Haugee, 402 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). · cites it 2× “[2] Section 933.05, Florida Statutes (1979), requires the warrant to name or describe "the person, place or thing to be searched.”

Spera v. State, 467 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). · cites it 4× “§ 933.05, Fla. Stat. (1983). In our view, the legislature has decided that ten days is a reasonable time and we, therefore, hold that a search warrant becomes stale if not executed within ten days after its issuance.”

State v. Taylor, 784 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, section 933.05, Florida Statutes (1999), requires that an executed warrant be returned within ten days of issuance.”

Bloom v. State, 283 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). · cites it 2× “IV, and the Florida Constitution, art. 1, § 12, F.S.A., provide that search warrants shall particularly describe the property to be seized.”

Samuel v. State, 222 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1969). · cites it 2× “" The petitioner contended at the trial and appellate levels, and here contends, that the failure of the search warrant to describe with particularity the person or persons to be searched renders it fatally defective and void ab initio under both the statute, § 933.05, Fla.…”

Lamont Davis v. State, 153 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). · cites it 2× “” § 933.05, Fla. Stat (2010). The affidavit in support of this search warrant included information obtained from Appellant in contravention of his Constitutional rights.”

Perez v. State, 521 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). · cites it 2× “I, § 12; § 933.05, Fla. Stat. (1985); Carlton v. State, 449 So.”

Ingraham v. State, 811 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). · cites it 2× “The motion argued in part that the search warrant was insufficient on its face because section 933.05, Florida Statutes (1999), requires that a search warrant must describe the items to be seized with particularity and none of the items seized were described in the war *773 rant.”

Show all 27 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.