STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
LORENZO WHITE, 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.
The state is not required to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who merely furnished the probable cause basis for a search or arrest, absent a showing that disclosure is necessary for the defense or infringes constitutional rights.
[1] Disclosure of a confidential informant is not required unless the informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial, or a failure to disclose their identity will infringe…
[2] The state is privileged to refuse disclosure of a confidential informant whose information is relied upon to establish probable cause, and the burden is upon the defendan…
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 intelligenceA confidential informant provided information to police that led to the respondent's arrest for drug possession. During pre-trial proceedings, the sta…
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 Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The State of Florida has filed a petition for writ of certiorari alleging that an order of the trial court which required the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant departed from the essential requirements of law and should be quashed. We agree.
On January 20, 1982, a confidential informant, equipped with a body bug that relayed his voice but did not make a tape recording, was sent into a bar in St. Peters- burg, Florida, by detectives from the St. Petersburg Police Department. Shortly after entering the bar, the informant related to the detectives that he had observed the respondent dealing in cocaine and that after completing a sale, he put cocaine into his sock. He also described the clothes being worn by the respondent. After conveying this information to the detectives, he left the bar and had no direct knowledge of subsequent events.
Based solely upon the information given by the confidential informant, the respondent was sought out and stopped by the detectives. After a pat-dowr. search revealed cocaine and marijuana in his sock, he was arrested for possession of cocaine and marijuana.
During the course of pre-trial proceedings, the detectives, while giving their depositions, refused to disclose the name and address of the informant, and the respondent then filed a motion to compel disclosure.
At the hearing on the motion, the state presented testimony concerning the event and the reliability of the confidential informant. The state also represented to the court that the confidential informant would not be called upon to testify at any hearing or trial. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the respondent’s motion to compel disclosure, and the state filed this petition for writ of certiorari.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(c)(2), provides as follows:
(2)Informants. Disclosure of a confidential informant shall not be required unless the confidential informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial, or a failure to disclose his identity will infringe the constitutional rights of the accused.
In addition to this procedural rule, it appears to be established law that the state is privileged to refuse disclosure of a confidential informant whose information is relied upon to establish probable cause, and the burden is upon the defendant to show he is entitled to an exception. State v. Matney, 236 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
Since the state represented to the trial court that the confidential informant would not be called upon to testify at any hearing or trial, the question before us is whether or not the respondent has carried his burden of showing that the failure to disclose the identity of the confidential informant will infringe upon his constitutional rights. At this stage of the proceedings, we hold that the state is not required to disclose the name and address of the confidential informant. 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. 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 establish that it will be necessary for the prosecution to refer to the informer in the presentation of its case, or that he was an active participant in the offense with which the defendant is charged, or there is no independent evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the state is not required to disclose the name of its confidential informant. Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
Upon remand, if the court is called upon to consider a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search of the respondent, the court will have to consider the requirements of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). Additionally, if the state’s position changes during subsequent proceedings and it attempts to introduce evidence related to the informant’s testimony, or should it occur that the informant must be confronted in order to allow the defendant his sixth amendment right to confront witnesses against him, the respondent may once again seek disclosure. Certiorari is granted, and the order requiring the disclosure of the identity of the informant is quashed.
GRIMES, A. C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…a state witness has been abridged. . 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. 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.…
-
State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…t basis for dismissal when defendant failed to establish 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…
-
State v. Hernandez, 546 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…that those actions waive the state’s right to seek review of the order. We reject their argument. Disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant who merely furnished the probable cause for a search or arrest is not required. State v. White, 418 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(c)(2), provides as follows: (2) Informants. Disclosure of a confidential informant shall not be required unless the…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (U.S. 1964)
- Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1969)
- McCRAY v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300 (U.S. 1967)
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- State v. Matney, 236 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- 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)
- State v. Martinez, 381 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)