STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DENNIS EDWARD VANWINKLE, 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.
The State appeals a trial court's order suppressing cannabis found during execution of a search warrant for a firearm. The appellate court reverses, holding that the affidavit established probable cause under the totality of circumstances test announced in Illinois v. Gates.
The affidavit established probable cause under the totality of circumstances analysis. The victim's statements against his penal interest, combined with partial corroborating evidence, provided a substantial basis for the magistrate to conclude there was a fair probability the gun would be found at the residence. Therefore, the suppression order is reversed.
[1] Probable cause for a search warrant is determined by a totality of the circumstances approach, where the informant's veracity and basis of knowledge are relevant but not…
[2] A magistrate's determination of probable cause is reviewed for whether there was a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”
Establishes the totality of circumstances standard for determining probable cause under Illinois v. Gates
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Cunningham applied for a search warrant to search Vanwinkle's mobile home for a revolver allegedly used in a shooting that occurred nine days …
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 Informant Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The state appeals from a trial court order suppressing evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant. The trial court found that the issuance of the search warrant was not based on probable cause. We reverse because we find that the content of the affidavit submitted by the state in its application for the warrant establishes probable cause.
George Cunningham of the Orlando Police Department applied for a search warrant of Vanwinkle’s mobile home to look for a revolver used in a shooting which occurred nine days previously. The affidavit supporting the application consisted mainly of statements that the victim of the shooting, Boyd Delbert Frizzell, gave to the Orlando Police Department. He claimed that Vanwinkle shot him as a result of a busted drug transaction. The affidavit also contained some partially corroborating evidence that a bullet was removed from Frizzell’s body and that Friz-zell identified Vanwinkle in a photographic lineup. The search warrant was issued to search Vanwinkle’s home for the revolver. Although the police did not find the weapon, they found twenty grams of cannabis in the mobile home. Vanwinkle was charged with unlawful possession of the cannabis,1 and his motion to suppress relates to the cannabis found in his home.
In granting Vanwinkle’s motion to suppress, the trial court ruled that there was no probable cause to believe that the firearm used to shoot Frizzell was at Van-winkle’s mobile home under the two-prong test of Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). These cases require that in order to find probable cause a magistrate must be informed of (1) some of the underlying circumstances necessary to enable him to independently judge the informant’s “basis of knowledge” and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer conclud ed that the informant was credible or his information reliable. See also State v. Cohen, 442 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
However, both parts of the “two prong” Aguilar test need not be satisfied independently of each other. In Illinois v. Gates, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the United States Supreme Court adopted a “totality of circumstances” approach to probable cause in which the two factors of the Aguilar test remain relevant considerations, 103 S.Ct. at 2329, but are “merely parts of all factors to be weighed when probable cause for a search warrant is under consideration.” Smigiel v. State, 439 So. 2d 239, 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of reviewing courts is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for ... concluding]’ that probable cause existed.
Gates, 103 S.Ct. at 2332.
The statements given by Frizzell to the Orlando Police Department were statements partially against his penal interest. This factor alone provides its own indicia of reliability. United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971); State v. Patterson, 309 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Given these statements and the partial corroborating facts gathered by Officer Cunningham, the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for his conclusion that there existed a fair probability that the gun would be found at Vanwinkle’s mobile home nine days after the shooting. Gates; Smigiel; State v. Jacobs, 437 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The judgment of the circuit court is
REVERSED.
COBB and COWART, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Noreen Marie Wildes, 468 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…hough the acts themselves contained considerable detail indicating the presence of contraband at the residence authorized to be searched. The State cites the usual cases1 and Tippins v. State, 454 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Vanwinkle, 444 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Bradford v. State, 448 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Zaner v. State, 444 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Graham v. State, 438 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Defendant cites Blue v. State, 441 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). W…
-
State v. Georgoudiou, 560 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…nitor transmitter, not on what Moshoures told Martino. Marti-no’s (not Moshoures’) reliability was the basis for the issuance of the search warrant. Moreover, an informant’s information may provide its own indicia of reliability. State v. Vanwinkle, 444 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 450 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1984). Controlled buys were upheld as the basis for probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant in State v. Moise, 522 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), and State v. Cohen, 442 So. 2d 346 (Fl…
-
State v. Enstice, 573 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…essary to enable him to independently judge the informant’s “basis of knowledge”, and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant was credible or his information reliable. See also State v. Vanwinkle, 444 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 450 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1984). Under the “totality of the circumstances” test involved in Gates, the two factors of the Aguilar-Spinelli test remain relevant considerations, but are merely among the factors to be weighed wh…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Illinois v. Gates et ux., 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983)
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (U.S. 1964)
- Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1969)
- United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1971)
- State v. Jacobs, 437 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- State v. Patterson, 309 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- State v. Cohen, 442 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Smigiel v. State, 439 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)