THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH NUNZE MARROW, 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 court affirmed the suppression of evidence seized under a search warrant. The affiant falsely stated in the affidavit that he received information from a confidential informant, when in reality he spoke to another officer who relayed the information.
The court held that the affiant's statement was at least recklessly false, and the fact that probable cause could have been shown truthfully does not cure the defect. Since the affidavit lacked sufficient facts to support probable cause after excising the false information, the warrant was invalid.
[1] A search warrant affidavit is at least recklessly false when the affiant implies a direct conversation with a confidential informant but in fact only spoke to another off…
[2] The existence of probable cause that could have been established by a truthful affidavit does not cure a false statement in the original affidavit regarding the source of…
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“in fact, the affiant had never communicated with the alleged confidential informant, but had spoken only to a fellow police officer, who told the affiant about the reliability of the confidential informant and the information which the informant gave.”
Establishes the factual basis for the false statement in the affidavit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe police affiant stated in a search warrant affidavit that he received information from a reliable confidential informant. However, it was revealed …
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 Franks V. Delaware Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
At a hearing conducted on the defendant’s challenge to the veracity of a sworn statement used by the police to procure a search warrant, it was revealed without dispute that notwithstanding the affiant’s sworn statement in the affidavit for the search warrant that “your affiant received information from a reliable confidential informant,” in fact, the affiant had never communicated with the alleged confidential informant, but had spoken only to a fellow police officer, who told the affiant about the reliability of the confidential informant and the information which the informant gave.
We affirm the trial court’s order suppressing the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant upon a holding that (1) where, as here, the affiant clearly implied that the critical conversation discussed in the affidavit was between the confidential informant and him, even though the affiant did not expressly state that he “personally” spoke to or interviewed the informant, see, e.g., Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); United States v. Davis, 714 F. 2d 896 (9th Cir.1983); Debord v. State, 422 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the affiant’s statement is at least recklessly false; (2) the fact that probable cause existed and could have been readily shown by a truthful affidavit stating that the affiant’s information came from a fellow officer does not change the result, since it is the truth of the affiant’s statement, not the truth of the confidential informant’s statement, that is material to the magistrate’s decision to issue the search warrant, United States v. Davis, 714 F. 2d 896; and (3) since after the required excision of the false information concerning the confidential informant, see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 172, 98’ S.Ct. at 2684, there are not sufficient facts in the affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, the warrant is thus invalid, and suppression of the evidence seized thereunder was properly granted.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Beney, 523 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…ufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit. 438 U.S. at 156, 98 S.Ct. at 2676. In State v. Marrow, 459 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 458 So. 2d 274 (Fla.1984), a case remarkably similar to the one before us, the affiant’s sworn statement in the affidavit for the search warrant related “Your affiant received information from a reliable confidential in…
-
State v. Stokes, 550 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…that the district court’s strongest concern in Beney was the reliability of the source and not the source’s status as a police officer. This is further indicated by the Beney court’s comment that their case was remarkably similar to State v. Marrow, 459 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 458 So. 2d 274 (Fla.1984) wherein the affiant stated that he received information from a reliable confidential informant when in fact he had never actually communicated with the informant but had spoken to a fellow police…
-
Malone v. State, 651 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…eceived from his partner, it is not fatal to the state’s case. Here, the affiant’s affidavit was not false or recklessly made in regard to a substantive matter. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); State v. Marrow, 459 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 458 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1984). Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit established probable cause. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). The issuing magistrate had a su…
Authorities Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978)
- United States v. Davis, 714 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1983)
- Debord v. State, 422 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)