STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES DEVOID, RESPONDENT
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 State of Florida challenged a trial court order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant's identity in a drug possession case. The appellate court held that disclosure is not required when the informant's sole role was to provide probable cause for a search warrant, and the defendant failed to assert a specific defense that would be impeded by non-disclosure.
Disclosure of a confidential informant's identity is not required when the informant's only role was to develop probable cause for a search warrant. A defendant must assert a specific defense to the charge that will be impeded by non-disclosure; merely seeking ammunition to attack the warrant's validity does not constitute such a defense.
[1] A confidential informant's identity need not be disclosed when the informant's sole role is to provide probable cause for a search warrant that leads to the seizure of ev…
[2] To be entitled to disclosure of a confidential informant's identity, a movant must assert a specific defense to the charge that would be impeded by the failure to learn t…
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“a confidential informant's identity need not be disclosed when the informant's sole role is to provide probable cause in support of a warrant which leads to the seizure of evidence which serves as the basis for the offense charged”
Establishes the core legal principle that protects informant identity when the informant only provides probable cause for a search
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 conducted a search of Devoid's residence based on a warrant supported by an affidavit describing three supervised marijuana purchases …
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 Confidential Informant Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida petitions this court for a writ of certiorari challenging the trial court’s order granting a motion by Charles Devoid to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. -We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(A). See State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); State v. Burns, 651 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We agree that the order departs from the essential requirements of law, and we quash the order of the trial court.
A law enforcement search of Devoid’s residence produced illegal drugs which led to the possession charge he defends in the trial court. The affidavit in support of the warrant obtained for the search by the detectives discloses three nearly identical purchases of marijuana from Devoid by a confidential informant, undertaken with law enforcement supervision and observation. In support of his motion to disclose this informant’s identity, Devoid asserts that “without the Informants (sic) Identity the Defendant would be denied from putting forth the de-fence (sic) that he was not the person selling the drugs.” From the motion and the subsequent hearing, Devoid attempts to distinguish his facts to avoid the application of the principle that a confidential informant’s identity need not be disclosed when the informant’s sole role is to provide probable cause in support of a warrant which leads to the seizure of evidence which serves as the basis for the offense charged. See State v. Mashke, 577 So. 2d 610, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Hernandez, 546 So. 2d 761, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
In order to establish entitlement to the informant’s identity, the movant must assert a specific defense to the charge which will be impeded by the failure to learn of the informant’s identity. See State v. Banks, 656 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Burns, 651 So. 2d at 718. The defense Devoid advanced in his motion — that he was not the person selling the drugs — is not a defense to the possession of contraband discovered at a different time in a different place. Instead, he seemed to argue at the hearing that the deposition of the confidential informant might provide information which would serve to support a motion attacking the search and seizure by impugning the reliability of information in the underlying law enforcement affidavit. He cites no cases which establish that ammunition to assail a search warrant constitutes a “specific defense” to a criminal charge. He also relies on no authority undermining the general principle that disclosure is forbidden in cases in which the only role played by the informant is the development of probable cause which results in a subsequent, fruitful search. In any event, Devoid proffers no conceivable testimony of the informant which would breathe life into a motion to suppress the evidence; no specific defense to the charge would be assisted by disclosure.
Certiorari is granted, and the order of the trial court requiring disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant is quashed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Burgos, 985 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…irements of law in ordering the disclosure of the informant’s identity. As a general rule, an informant’s identity need not be disclosed when the informant’s sole role is to provide probable cause in support of a search warrant. See State v. Devoid, 706 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. Mashke, 577 So. 2d 610, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Even if Mr. Burgos were able to make a claim that overcame this general rule, the circuit court would first be required to conduct an in camera hearing to determine wh…
-
State v. Simmons, 887 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…So. 2d 729, 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Moreover, the misidentification raised by the appellee in his motion would not be a defense to the possession of the contraband and firearm discovered at a different time in a different place. See State v. Devoid, 706 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). For all of the foregoing reasons, we reverse the orders under review and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded; conflict certified. . The statute provides, in pertinent part: (1)(a) E…
-
State v. Jean, 270 So. 3d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…rant it. See, e.g., State v. Borrego, 970 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant was reviewable by way of certiorari where there was no adequate remedy on appeal); State v. Devoid, 706 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (same). The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the disclosure without first conducting the in-camera hearing the law requires. See State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- State v. Hernandez, 546 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- State v. Mashke, 577 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- State v. Burns, 651 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- State v. Roy Banks, 656 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)