From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
May 28, 1980
383 So. 2d 991 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Opinion

No. 00-166/T1-107.

May 28, 1980.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, St. Johns County, Richard O. Watson, J.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, Daytona Beach, and Thomas S. Keith, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Gregory C. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


Appellant contends that condition (11) of his probation which requires him to consent to a search of himself or any vehicle or premises under his control at any time by any law enforcement officer is overbroad and violates his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution.

The provision is valid insofar as it permits appellant's probation supervisors to make these searches, but is not valid insofar as it grants blanket permission for warrantless searches to other law enforcement officers. Grubbs v. State, 373 So.2d 905 (Fla. 1979); Wood v. State, 378 So.2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Condition (11) of the probation order is modified to apply only to probation supervisors, and as modified, the judgment and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
May 28, 1980
383 So. 2d 991 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
Case details for

Smith v. State

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH KERMIT SMITH, JR., APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: May 28, 1980

Citations

383 So. 2d 991 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing Cases

Warren v. State

This condition gives only a probation officer authority to search the probationer and is not a blanket grant…

Soca v. State

In the immediate wake of Grubbs, courts of this state repeatedly approved of a condition of probation which…