united-states criminal-law search-and-seizure florida
Evidence found during police search of incorrect address listed on search warrant
<p>A warehouse is a single structure with several divided units separated by concrete walls. These units have different sequential addresses; </p>

<ul>
<li>1000 Fake St (unit A)</li>
<li>1001 Fake St (unit B)</li>
<li>1002 Fake St (unit C)</li>
<li>1003 Fake St (unit D)</li>
</ul>

<p>Lets say a person is selling marijuana from unit C. Police get a search warrant for unit C but mistakenly enter the wrong one (unit B). Inside of unit B, Police find 1 lb of marijuana. </p>

<ul>
<li>Can this evidence be used against the suspect who is listed as the renter/owner of unit c?</li>
<li>Can the renter/owner of unit b, be charged for the marijuana?</li>
<li>Is this evidence even admissible in court?</li>
<li>In a situation where a judge doesn't allow the submission of this evidence in any case. Can the rightful owner of the marijuana ask for it to be returned even thou it is illegal in the state?</li>
</ul>

<p><a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/19507/10">Here is an excellent (and extensive) explanation of jurisprudence regarding the "good faith exception"</a> to the admissibility of evidence found due to an error.  In short: Yes, the contraband found in Unit B would be evidence admissible in court.</p>

<p>(Of course, evidence found in Unit B would only support charges against whomever had a nexus to that property.  If the owner of Unit C had no access to Unit B, then evidence in Unit B would not <em>per se</em> implicate him in a crime.)</p>

<p>Law enforcement will not return seized property if it believes the property is "contraband."  As an example, in Pennsylvania a person can petition a court for return of property seized by law enforcement: <a href="https://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter5/s588.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule 588</a> requires the petitioner to establish entitlement to lawful possession of the property, but the motion will be rejected if the State successfully argues that the property is contraband, or "derivative contraband" (which has been defined in case law to mean there is "a specific nexus between the property and criminal activity").</p>

<p>There was a case where the police in the USA had a warrant to search the flat on the top (third) floor on a building. Nobody realised that there were two flats, so they searched the wrong one, and found a gun. Which was admissible as evidence. </p>

<p>I think this is covered up to the point where they realise their mistake, and then the police has to leave immediately. </p>
