CHESTER F. HAWORTH, 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.
Chester Haworth challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant of his residence. The court reversed, finding that the affidavit supporting the warrant relied on a videotape dated May 6, 1991—more than sixteen months before the warrant was issued on September 25, 1992—without any evidence of ongoing criminal activity, making the evidence stale and failing to establish probable cause.
No. The court held that the evidence was stale under the doctrine established in Smith v. State and Sgro v. United States. The sixteen-month delay between the videotape's date and the warrant application, combined with the absence of any evidence of an ongoing pattern of criminal activity, rendered the affidavit insufficient to establish probable cause.
[1] Probable cause for a search warrant is diminished when the evidence supporting the warrant is stale.
[2] A significant time lapse between the events depicted in evidence and the date of a search warrant affidavit may render the evidence stale.
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 length of time between the events relied upon to obtain a search warrant and the date of issuance bears upon probable cause.”
Establishes the foundational principle that temporal proximity is essential to probable cause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA detective obtained a search warrant for Haworth's residence based on an affidavit stating that postal inspectors had found a pornographic videotape …
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 Staleness Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Chester F. Haworth, challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence against him, arguing that the affidavit in support of a warrant to search his residence failed to establish probable cause to conduct such a search. We agree and reverse.
On September 25, 1992, a detective from the Sarasota 'County Sheriffs Department obtained, and thereafter executed, a search warrant for Haworth’s residence. The affidavit in support of the warrant asserted that the detective had been contacted by two postal inspectors, who advised that a pornographic videotape had been recovered from another postal employee. According to the affidavit, the pornography depicted on the tape involved Haworth, who was also a post office employee, and a female, who was possibly underage. A label on the videotape bore the date May 6, 1991, which was more than sixteen months prior to the date on which the affidavit was being submitted. From that label, the detective concluded that the activities depicted on the videotape must have taken place on May 6, 1991, and, given the nature of the activity, established probable cause to charge Haworth with lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under sixteen.
At the hearing on Haworth’s motion to suppress, the detective who prepared the affidavit testified that, based on his experience with those who sexually abuse and exploit children, Haworth was probably the type who would retain his pornographic contraband. The detective therefore determined, upon submitting the affidavit at issue, that there was probable cause to suspect that pornographic material would currently be found at Haworth’s residence.
In Smith v. State, 438 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), this court stated:
The length of time between the events relied upon to obtain a search warrant and the date of issuance bears upon probable cause. Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206, 53 S.Ct. 138, 77 L.Ed. 260 (1932). Generally, as the time period increases there is less likelihood that the items sought to be seized will be found on the premises described in the warrant. See 100 A.L.R.2d-525 (1965). The rule of thumb is thirty days, but each case must be decided upon its own particular circumstances. Rodriguez v. State, 297 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1974); Hammelmann v. State, 113 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Evidence of an ongoing pattern of criminal activity may justify an extended time lapse. Hud son v. State, 368 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 345 (Fla.1979); Hess v. State, 309 So. 2d 606 (Fla. App.1975).
The instant record shows that though the videotape cassette bore a label with the date May 6, 1991, the officer who submitted the aforementioned affidavit on September 25, 1992, had absolutely no information before him as to when the events depicted on the tape actually occurred. He also had no idea whether such activities continued to occur since the tape was made. Thus, since the events at issue were, at a very minimum, more than sixteen months old and since there was no evidence, beyond speculation, of an ongoing pattern of criminal activity, the evidence upon which the instant search warrant was based, was stale pursuant to Smith and Sgro. We, therefore, find the trial court erred in denying Haworth’s motion to suppress.
Accordingly, the instant cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HALL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pilieci v. State, 991 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…lt of material omissions within the affidavit. Because the affidavit was issued on the twenty-ninth day and case law tends to use the thirtieth day as an indicator of staleness, see Rodriguez v. State, 297 So. 2d 15, 18 (Fla.1974); Haworth v. State, 637 So. 2d 267, 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Hamelmann v. State, 113 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), much of the trial court’s focus was on the issue of staleness. The trial court determined that the affidavit established probable cause and that no material omissi…
-
State v. Vanderhors, 927 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…tain a search warrant and the date of issuance bears upon probable cause. Generally, as the time period increases there is less likelihood that the items sought to be seized will be found on the premises described in the warrant.” Haworth v. State, 637 So. 2d 267, 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (citation omitted) (quoting Smith v. State, 438 So. 2d 896, 897-98 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)). Recently, this court found in Jenkins that an affidavit established that the evidence was still likely to be located at the place to be…
-
Brachlow v. State, 907 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ssage of time is an important factor in support of the existence of probable cause, it is not the only factor. See Cruz v. State, 788 So. 2d 375, 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In support of his staleness argument, appellant relies upon Haworth v. State, 637 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); however, we find that case distinguishable. In Ha-worth, the court concluded that a sixteen-month time lapse between the time that a videotape was made and the time the search warrant was obtained resulted in a stale warrant. In…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1932)
- Rodriguez v. State, 297 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1974)
- Hamelmann v. State, 113 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Hudson v. State, 368 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Smith v. State, 438 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Hess v. State, 309 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)