HERMAN LEE JOHNSON, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for destruction of evidence, holding that inaccuracies in a search warrant affidavit constituted harmless error and did not invalidate the warrant. The court found sufficient probable cause remained even after disregarding the erroneous information.
No, the inaccuracies in the affidavit did not render the warrant invalid. The court held that the misstatements were not intentionally or recklessly made and that sufficient probable cause remained even after setting aside the erroneous facts. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
[1] A search warrant affidavit containing inaccuracies does not automatically invalidate the warrant if the inaccuracies were not intentionally or recklessly made.
[2] Even if certain facts in a search warrant affidavit are found to be inaccurate, the remaining facts may still establish probable cause.
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 Court finds that the affidavit of the officer that the informant went into the house was incorrect in that the informant bought drugs from a screened window on the porch, however, this is harmless error, in asmuch as the officers had patted down a female informant, who had tight jeans on without back pockets and reasonably would have felt any objects on the informant to prevent a set up.”
Establishes the court's finding that the inaccuracies were harmless error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of destruction of evidence. He moved to suppress evidence obtained via a search warrant, arguing the supporting affidavit …
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals his conviction of destruction of evidence. He contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress based on certain inaccuracies in the affidavit for the search war rant. The affidavit provided that the confidential informant bought cocaine in the house when she really had purchased it at an outside window of the house; the time of the buy was set at 11:30 P.M. rather than the correct time of 8:30 P.M.; the informant had been searched but it was shown later that that did not include a strip search.
The record supports the trial court’s order which provides:
THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, the Court having heard argument of counsel, reviewed the file and being otherwise advised in the premises, the Court finds that the affidavit did provide probable cause, the defendant claims unreliability of the informant, however, this was a controlled buy of the drugs and, therefore, raised reliability to a high degree. The Court finds that the affidavit of the officer that the informant went into the house was incorrect in that the informant bought drugs from a screened window on the porch, however, this is harmless error, in asmuch as the officers had patted down a female informant, who had tight jeans on without back pockets and reasonably would have felt any objects on the informant to prevent a set up.
THE COURT notes that the affidavit and search warrant are accurate in describing the things to be seized and the place to be searched....
There is nothing in the record to show the misstatements were either intentionally or recklessly made. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Mathes v. State, 375 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Also, after setting aside the erroneous facts, there remains sufficient facts alleged in uhe affidavit to demonstrate probable cause. Stipp v. State, 355 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
This matter is affirmed.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978)
- Stipp v. State, 355 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Hans Peter Mathes and Robert Gerard Mass v. State, 375 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)