THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDRES RENE RUIZ, HERBERTO LORENZO, ELISEO MARQUEZ, JORGE LUIS HERNANDEZ, HERNAN RIGOHERTO FLORES, AND EDUARDO LORENZO, 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 reversed the dismissal of trafficking charges where a confidential informant had a contingent fee arrangement with police, holding that the due process violation identified in State v. Glosson is obviated when the state represents it will not call the informant as a witness.
When the state represents that a confidential informant with a contingent fee arrangement will not testify at trial, the due process concerns articulated in State v. Glosson are eliminated and the charges need not be dismissed.
[1] A contingent fee arrangement between a confidential informant and law enforcement does not violate due process when the state represents and is bound by a commitment not…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 thrust of Glosson is clearly to prevent the introduction of testimony by the c.i. which may be tainted, if not perjured, as a result of his monetary interest in the outcome”
Court explaining the rationale for Glosson and why the state's representation not to call the informant eliminates the due process violation
Defendants were charged with trafficking. A confidential informant had a contingent fee arrangement with police, and the trial court dismissed the cha…
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 Trafficking cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The state appeals from the dismissal of trafficking charges on the ground that the contingent fee arrangement between the confidential informant and the police resulted in a violation of defendants’ due process rights as enunciated in State v. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1985). We reverse.
The prosecutor indicated below and the attorney general has emphasized here that the confidential informant will not be called by the state as a witness at any stage of the trial of this case. Since the thrust of Glosson is clearly to prevent the introduction of testimony by the c.i. which may be tainted, if not perjured, as a result of his monetary interest in the outcome, State v. Perez, 493 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Prieto, 479 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), these representations — by which, of course, the state is and will be strictly bound, Finney v. State, 420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (Pearson, J., specially concurring); Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, Inc., 368 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 342 (Fla.1979) — that the c.i. in question will not testify at all totally obviates the applicability of Glosson. State v. Prieto, 479 So. 2d 320.
On this basis, the order below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Naceur Khelifi v. State, 560 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…h the authorities knew of no prior criminal activity by them. However, these factors alone do not amount to a violation of due process rights as a matter of law. E.g. Hunter v. State; Perez v. State, 517 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Ruiz, 495 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed. HERSEY, C.J., concurs. ANSTEAD, J., concurs in conclusion only.…
-
State v. Manderville, 512 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…of the informant as a determination that the defendant would suffer prejudice if the informant were not produced.1 State v. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1985), relied upon by the defendant, is not controlling. Construing Glosson in State v. Ruiz, 495 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), we held that the thrust of Glosson is to prevent the introduction of testimony by a confidential informant which may be tainted, if not perjured, as a result of an arrangement for a fee to be paid the informant based on the natur…
-
State v. Fernandez, 546 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…for bigger deals. The testimony of the confidential informant was not to be offered at trial. There is ample post-Glosson case law to support this type of police action. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 498 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. Ruiz, 495 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Perez, 493 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Lee v. State, 490 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); State v. [*794] Prieto, 479 So. 2d 320 (Pla. 3d DCA 1985); Yolman v. State, 473 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we r…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Boyce E. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1985)
- Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, Inc., 368 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Logan Finney v. State, 420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. Prieto, 479 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Bart Wiener v. Pope, 479 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- State v. Perez, 493 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)