Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 933.08 (2025)
Search warrants to be served by officers mentioned therein.
✓ 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
933.08 Search warrants to be served by officers mentioned therein.—The search warrant shall in all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction, but by no other person except in aid of the officer requiring it, said officer being present and acting in its execution.
History.—s. 8, ch. 9321, 1923; CGL 8510.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1963–2018 · leading case: Morris v. State, 622 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Morris v. State, 622 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). “As to search warrants, section 933.08, Florida Statutes (1991) provides: Search warrants to be served by officers mentioned therein.”
State v. Vargas, 667 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1995). “§ 933.08, Fla. Stat. (1993). It is clear that Harris, the Clay County deputy, was the primary actor in the execution of the search warrant at issue.”
Vargas v. State, 640 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). “[1] After a hearing, the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress in which he argued the officer who served the search warrant for the blood sample was outside his territorial jurisdiction when he did so, and thus in violation of section 933.08, Florida Statutes. [2]…”
Sharon v. State, 156 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). “s illegally executed in that while the warrant was directed to "all and singular the Sheriffs and/or Deputy Sheriffs of Dade County, Florida, or any Constable of said County: * * *", *679 [the office of Sheriff of Dade County, Florida, is non-existent having been abolished by…”
State v. Moreno-Gonzalez, 18 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “1995) (suppressing evidence where warrant was served by an officer not named in the warrant, in violation of section 933.08, Florida Statutes). [2] The strict construction rule is subject to the qualification that suppression is not required for a purely technical error.”
Daniels v. State, 913 A.2d 617 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006). “Section 933.08, Florida Statutes (1977) reads: The search warrant shall [i]n all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction, but [b]y no other person except in aid of the officer requiring it, said officer being present and acting in its execution.”
Hesselrode v. State, 369 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). “Section 933.08, Florida Statutes, (1977) reads: "The search warrant shall in all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction, but by no other person except in aid of the officer requiring it, said officer being present and acting in its execution.”
State of Florida v. Lewis Stouffer, Clark Jeffrey Thompson & Craig Turturo, 248 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “Additionally, section 933.08, Florida Statutes, states: “The search warrant shall in all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction, but by no other person except in aid of the officer requiring it, said officer being present and acting in its execution.”
Riley v. State, 448 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). “” Section 933.08, Florida Statutes (1981), further provides that a search warrant “shall in all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction, but by no other person except in aid of the officer requiring it, said officer being present and acting in its…”
Nofs v. State, 295 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). “Appellant first contends that the search warrant was served by an officer who was not authorized to execute it in violation of F.S. § 933.08 F.S.A. The warrant was directed to "the Sheriff and/or Deputy Sheriffs of Pinellas County, Florida; and police officers of the City of St.”
Carter v. State, 199 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). “requires sworn affidavits and possibly "further testimony" tending to "establish the grounds of the application or probable cause for believing that they exist" to the judge or magistrate before the warrant is issued. F.S. Section 933.07 F.S.A. fixes the judicial duty upon the…”
State v. Hill, 980 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “Detectives Bradford and Williams first obtained a warrant for a K-9 sniff of the outside of Hills' property, based on probable cause to believe that the Hills were cultivating cannabis in their home.”
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.