THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
PEDRO PABLO MARTINEZ, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida's state sought review of a circuit court order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant's identity in a drug prosecution. The appellate court held that the state is not required to disclose an informant's identity when the informant merely provides probable cause for arrest or search, and quashed the disclosure order.
The state is not required to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who merely furnishes the probable cause basis for a search or arrest. The circuit court's order requiring such disclosure was an abuse of discretion and departure from established law.
[1] The state is not required to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who merely furnishes the probable cause basis for a search or an arrest.
[2] An order requiring the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, when the informant's information merely established probable cause for an arrest, repre…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It has long been recognized in the federal courts and under the law of Florida that the state is not required to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who merely furnishes the probable cause basis for a search or an arrest.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle that informant privilege protects identity when informant only provides probable cause.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer received a telephone call from a confidential informant with whom he had a long-standing working relationship. The informant provided…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confidential Informant Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A petition for writ of certiorari filed by the state presents for review an order of the circuit court requiring the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, in a prosecution against respondent for certain violations of Chapter 893 of the Florida Statutes. In light of the record, briefs and argument, we hold that the challenged order represents a departure from the essential requirements of law and must be quashed.
The transcript of testimony given at the hearing on respondent’s motion to compel disclosure of the confidential informant contains the recitation of events prior to the arrest of Martinez. The police officer heading up the instant narcotics investigation testified that he received a telephone call from an informant with whom he had established a beneficial working relationship over four to five years; the informant told the officer that a certain named Cuban male who owned and operated a named business at a given address would be leaving his place of business at a specified time later that day and would drive to the residence of some Colombian subjects where he would receive a quantity of cocaine. The informant had given a full physical description of the person and the vehicle he would be driving. The police set up a surveillance pursuant to the information given by the informant, and each detail of the data given was thereafter corroborated by the police, and respondent was ultimately arrested (without warrant) while in possession of a kilogram of cocaine.
It has long been recognized in the federal courts and under the law of Florida that the state is not required to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who merely furnishes the probable cause basis for a search or an arrest. See, McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62, reh. denied, 386 U.S. 1042, 87 S.Ct. 1474, 18 L.Ed.2d 616 (1967); State v. Katz, 295 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); State v. Matney, 236 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Pearson v. State, 190 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So. 2d 814 (Fla.1967); Dasher v. State, 178 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); F.R.Cr.P. 3.220(c)(2).
Certiorari is granted and the order for disclosure of the identity of the informant is quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…is, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62, reh. denied, 386 U.S. 1042, 87 S.Ct. 1474, 18 L.Ed.2d 616 (1967); State v. Kirksey, 418 So. 2d 1152, 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); State v. White, 418 So. 2d 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); State v. Martinez, 381 So. 2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Katz, 295 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); State v. Matney, 236 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Pearson v. State, 190 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So. 2d 814 (Fla.1967); Dasher v. State, 178 So.…
-
State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…sh necessity for disclosure). The fact that the informant provided good cause for a defendant’s arrest is not enough to overcome the privilege of nondisclosure. State v. Kirksey; State v. White, 418 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); State v. Martinez, 381 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).1 Therefore, this was not a valid basis for the order compelling disclosure of the informant’s identity. However, a defendant can sustain his burden to establish the necessity for the informant’s identity by demonstrating that the…
-
State v. White, 418 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…s long been recognized in the federal courts and under the law of Florida that the state is not required to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who merely furnishes the probable cause basis for a search or an arrest. State v. Martinez, 381 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62, reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 1042, 87 S.Ct. 1474, 18 L.Ed.2d 616 (1967); State v. Katz, 295 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); State v. Matney. Unless a defendant can establ…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCRAY v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Matney, 236 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- ST. Johns River Terminal Co., Inc. v. Vaden, 200 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1967)
- Pearson v. State, 200 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1967)
- State v. Sanford Katz and Milton Prenner, 295 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Louie v. Washington, 386 U.S. 1042 (U.S. 1967)
- Sands v. Wainwright, 386 U.S. 1042 (U.S. 1967)
- Dasher v. State, 178 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Pearson v. State, 190 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)