STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHEN E. MAYES, JR., 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.
Florida appealed a trial court's suppression of evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, arguing the affidavit supporting the warrant contained sufficient probable cause. The appellate court reversed, holding that the affidavit did establish probable cause based on the totality of circumstances, and that continuous surveillance of discarded trash is not a legal requirement.
The affidavit provided the requisite probable cause under the totality of circumstances test. Continuous monitoring or surveillance of discarded trash is not a legal requirement for establishing probable cause.
[1] Probable cause for a search warrant exists when the affidavit demonstrates a fair probability that contraband or criminal evidence will be found in a particular place, ba…
[2] Continuous surveillance of garbage placed at the curb is not a prerequisite for establishing probable cause to search that garbage.
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 affidavit did provide the required probable cause”
States the core holding that the appellate court rejected the trial court's suppression order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw enforcement received a report from a concerned citizen that the appellee was involved in narcotics activity. Officers conducted surveillance of ap…
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 Surveillance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant/State challenges the trial court order granting appellee’s motion to suppress contraband found in his residence pursuant to a search warrant. The trial court suppressed the evidence because it found that the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant did not provide the requisite probable cause. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the affidavit did provide the required probable cause. Accordingly, we reverse.
Following a call from a “concerned citizen” to the effect that appellee was involved in narcotics activity, law enforcement conducted surveillance of appellee’s home. As part of the surveillance, officers retrieved three bags of trash from the curb in front of the home. Inside, they found several pieces of mail with appellee’s name on it, along with cannabis stems, seeds, rolling papers and suspected cannabis roaches. Based on this discovery, in addition to the officers’ observation of and the “concerned citizen’s” report of traffic to and from the home at all hours of the day and night, officers obtained a search warrant. Execution of the warrant produced contraband.
The trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress the contraband because the affidavit did not aver that the officers maintained constant surveillance of the garbage to be sure no one had disturbed it between the time it was put out and the time it was searched. However, the cases do not support this reasoning. See Scott v. State, 559 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); State v. Jacobs, 437 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Jacobs followed the Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) “totality of the circumstances” test which asks whether the facts indicate a “fair probability” that contraband or criminal evidence will be found in a particular place. Continuous monitoring is not a requirement. See also California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988).
Our review of the affidavit here leads us to conclude that probable cause was shown. The concerned citizen reported having seen traffic come and go at all hours of the day and night; the officers confirmed this observation; and the officers discovered narcotics along with mail addressed to appellee in appellee’s trash. This case is very similar to Scott, cited above. Although the narcotics were not discovered on two occasions, as was the ease in Jacobs, that is not required for probable cause under Scott.
Having concluded that the affidavit did provide sufficient probable cause, we reverse.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raulerson v. State, 714 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ry of narcotics from a one-time trash pull, where additional information was included in the affidavits which suggested patterns of continuous drug activity sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to search. For example, in State v. Mayes, 666 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), the affidavit contained not only information of a one-time trash pull leading to the discovery of narcotics, but also of “the officers’ observation of and the ‘concerned citizen’s’ report of traffic to and from the [defendant’s]…1 / 2
-
State v. Stevenson, 707 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…can left outside for collection. See State v. Fisher, 591 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Furthermore, there is no requirement that the police must continuously monitor a suspect’s garbage to establish that no one disturbed it. See State v. Mayes, 666 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).…
-
Lavinia Baker v. State, 762 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…h probable cause that cannabis would be found on a later date. • In Raulerson, we distinguished State v. Jacobs, 437 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), because in that case there had been two separate trash pulls. We also distinguished State v. Mayes, 666 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), in which there was only one trash pull but both police and a citizen had observed traffic to and from defendant’s home at all, hours. In both Jacobs and Mayes, the courts found probable cause. We conclude that this case is disti…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1988)
- State v. Jacobs, 437 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Fla. Hwy. Patrol & Div. of Risk Mgmt. v. Derry Ann Kraszewski, 559 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)