STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD HERBERT COLE, JR., CAROL MAIER AND KEVIN NEIL MAIER, APPELLEES
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 appeals from a trial court's order suppressing evidence obtained via search warrant. The appellate court reversed, holding that the affidavit supporting the warrant contained sufficient indications of probable cause that marijuana would be found at defendants' premises, despite the affidavit's failure to specify the quantity of cannabis observed or confirm its presence at the time of warrant issuance.
The affidavit sufficiently established probable cause because it demonstrated both the reliability of the information and the affiant's reason to believe in the informant's truthfulness under the two-pronged Aguilar test. The fourteen-day period between the observation and warrant issuance does not defeat a finding of probable cause when the period does not exceed thirty days.
[1] An affidavit supporting a search warrant is sufficient to establish probable cause if it indicates the information is reliable and the affiant has reason to believe in th…
[2] A confidential informant's past provision of accurate information leading to arrests supports the reliability of current information provided by that informant.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The affidavit here, like the one in Chadwick v. State, 358 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), when read in the 'commonsense manner' dictated in United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965), sufficiently indicates: (1) the information is reliable, and (2) the affiant has reason to believe in the truthfulness of that information.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating affidavits and the two-pronged Aguilar test.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 16, 1980, a search warrant was executed at premises occupied by defendants Carol Maier, Kevin Maier, and Richard Cole. The affidavit supportin…
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 Aguilar-Spinelli Test cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The State appeals from an order granting defendants’ motion to suppress. The State contends the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress because, contrary to the finding by the trial court, the affidavit in support of the search warrant was sufficient to indicate probable cause that marijuana would be found on the premises occupied by the defendants. We agree and reverse.
Defendants, Carol Maier, Kevin Maier, and Richard Cole, were charged by information on June 27, 1980, with possession of more than twenty (20) grams of cannabis. Subsequently, appellees filed a motion to suppress, alleging the affidavit supporting the search warrant executed on June 16, 1980, was insufficient because it did not show the quantity of cannabis reportedly seen on the premises and the affiant failed to allege the cannabis was still present at the time the affidavit was executed. The contested affidavit stated the affiant received information from a reliable confidential informant that the informant personally observed a quantity of cannabis on defendants’ premises “within the last fourteen days.”
In granting defendants’ motion to suppress, the trial court determined that the observation of an unspecified quantity of marijuana inside a private residence and. a fourteen day time period between that observation and the issuance of a search warrant failed to indicate probable cause sufficient to believe that a violation of a drug abuse law was taking place at the time of the execution of the warrant. We disagree.
The affidavit here, like the one in Chadwick v. State, 358 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), when read in the “commonsense manner” dictated in United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965), sufficiently indicates: (1) the information is reliable, and (2) the affiant has reason to believe in the truthfulness of that information. This court determined, in Chadwick, that no more is necessary to satisfy the two-pronged test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). In the instant case, the record indicates the affiant has been employed with the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Department for five years, including twenty months on the vice squad. Furthermore, the information in the affidavit was reliable as the informant had personally observed cannabis inside appellees’ premises and had in the past provided accurate information leading to the arrest of at least ten persons for drug related activities.
We also determine that the fourteen day period between the observation of the cannabis and the issuance of a warrant will not disturb the finding of probable cause. House v. State, 323 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Citing Hamelmann v. State, 113 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), we held, in House, supra, that if the time period between the alleged criminal activity and the issuance of the search warrant is no more than thirty (30) days, a finding of probable cause will not be disturbed.
Accordingly, the order below granting appellees’ motion to suppress is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED for action consistent with this opinion.
SHAW and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zaner v. State, 444 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…dence to a judicial officer before acting.10 As for appellant’s “staleness” argument, the warrant was issued fourteen days after the controlled buy, well within the thirty-day period approved in House v. State, supra, footnote 1, and State v. Cole, 395 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Although there was a nine-day delay in execution of the search warrant, the proffered testimony of Deputy Sheriff Williams that it was not his practice to serve warrants when no one was at home, and that he stayed at the apartme…
Authorities Cited
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (U.S. 1964)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1965)
- Hamelmann v. State, 113 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- House v. State, 323 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Chadwick v. State, 358 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)