STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RAUL GARCIA, 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 trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress evidence based on a misapplication of probable cause standards.
Defendant was arrested for cannabis possession after a search of his person and car, based on information from a confidential informant. The trial cou…
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 Totality Of The Circumstances Test (For Probable Cause) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, the state contends that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. We reverse.
Garcia was arrested and charged with possession of more than twenty grams of cannabis found during a search of his person and automobile by law enforcement officers pursuant to information supplied to them by a confidential informant. The trial court expressed the belief that the relevant case law required the officers to have additional corroborating information that Garcia possessed cannabis and granted the defendant’s motion to suppress.
In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 108 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the Supreme Court established a “totality of the circumstances” test as the proper test for determining probable cause. See also State v. Butler, 655 So. 2d 1123, 1128-1129 (Fla.1995) (discussing totality of the circumstances test and explaining that although corroboration of innocent activity alone may not be sufficient to support finding of probable cause, Gates states that “ ‘probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity ”). The suppression order in the instant case is reversed, and this case is remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motion to suppress in light of Gates and Butler. MINER, ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aguiar v. Aguiar, 739 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…al judgment of dissolution of marriage. The trial court awarded Appellee permanent alimony “until further order of court.” However, permanent periodic alimony terminates upon the death of either spouse or upon Appel-lee’s remarriage. Paulk v. Paulk, 680 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203-04 (Fla.1980)). We direct that, on remand, the trial court modify the judgment in accordance with the above-stated rule. The trial court erred in failing to determine Appell…
Authorities Cited
- Illinois v. Gates et ux., 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983)
- State v. Yama Butler, 655 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1995)