MICHAEL CREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Michael Crews appealed the denial of his motion to suppress heroin and firearms seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. The court affirmed the denial, holding that a controlled drug purchase from the premises provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant and that the warrant was properly executed in compliance with Florida's knock-and-announce statute.
The court held that the controlled buy alone provided sufficient probable cause to justify the search warrant without requiring explicit allegations that additional contraband remained on the premises. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that officers complied with the knock-and-announce statute during warrant execution.
[1] A controlled drug buy supervised by law enforcement, resulting in the purchase of contraband from the described premises, is a sufficient factual premise to establish pro…
[2] The mere fact that a controlled buy occurred does not, by itself, establish probable cause to believe that additional contraband remains on the premises.
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 controlled buy alone is sufficient factual premise from which the affiant and the magistrate could conclude that additional contraband remained on the premises”
Establishes that a controlled drug purchase from the premises provides sufficient probable cause for a search warrant without requiring explicit allegations of remaining contraband
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Watson of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office conducted a controlled buy operation at Crews' residence within ten days prior to the search warra…
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 Controlled Buy cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
Crews appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress heroin and firearms seized from his residence pursuant to the execution of a search warrant. Subsequent to the entry of the order denying his motion, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offenses of possession with intent to sell a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, reserving the right to appeal the order. Crews asserts that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was facially insufficient. For our purposes, the principal allegations of the affidavit were as follows: that within the past ten days, affiant, Officer Watson of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, accompanied a confidential informant to the subject residence; that he personally searched the informant and determined that he was not in possession of any controlled substances; that he gave the informant money with which to buy a quantity of controlled substance; that he personally observed the informant purchase foil packets which were handed to the informant through a window at the side of the residence by a person inside such residence. Officer Watson then recovered from the informant the foil packets which proved to contain heroin. Crews asserts that the affidavit was deficient because it failed to allege facts demonstrating that there was probable cause to believe that additional controlled substances remained inside the premises after the controlled buy. We reject Crews’ argument.
In State v. Gieseke, 328 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1976), a search warrant was issued predicated upon an affidavit which described a controlled buy of marijuana at the premises of the defendant. The affidavit also included the statement:
Based on a conversation with the confidential informant, affiant believes that other dangerous drugs are located in the above described building.
Analyzing the affidavit’s sufficiency minus the above language, the Supreme Court stated:
It is clear that, when all reference to hearsay testimony is eliminated, the fact that affiant personally supervised the controlled buy resulting in the purchase of contraband from the described premises was sufficient probable cause to justify the warrant.
[T]he controlled buy alone is sufficient factual premise from which the affiant and the magistrate could conclude that additional contraband remained on the premises. [328 So. 2d at 17, 18] Crews also asserts that the search warrant was executed in such a manner as to violate Section 933.09, Florida Statutes, the “knock and announce” statute. Several witnesses testified regarding the manner in which the warrant was executed and there was competent substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that the officers complied with the statute.
The trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress is, therefore, AFFIRMED.
LARRY G. SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Cohen, 442 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…contraband on the premises; and (3) The controlled buy alone was a sufficient factual premise from which the affiant and the magistrate could conclude that additional contraband remained on the premises. 328 So. 2d at 18. See also Crews v. State, 431 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (controlled buy of drugs sufficient to support search warrant); State v. Parker, 407 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (controlled purchase of illegal bet seen sufficient to determine probable cause for search warrant in a bookmaking…
-
State v. Donell Brown, 539 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…herever he might be found) to purchase cocaine. She then took the officers directly to the apartment in question, and was observed, by the police officers, making a purchase of cocaine. See State v. Gieseke, 328 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1976); Crews v. State, 431 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). REVERSED.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Gieseke, 328 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1976)