GAYLE RAULERSON, 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.
Gayle Raulerson appeals the denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked sufficient probable cause because it failed to establish a pattern of continuous drug activity beyond a single trash pull that revealed cannabis.
No. The affidavit lacked the required probable cause because, while it contained evidence of a one-time positive trash pull, it failed to include material facts suggesting a pattern of continuous drug activity necessary to establish probable cause for searching the residence.
[1] A search warrant affidavit based solely on a single trash pull yielding evidence of drug use is insufficient to establish probable cause without additional information in…
[2] Probable cause for a search warrant requires a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although the affidavit contained relevant information that the substance found in the one-time trash pull tested positive for cannabis, we believe the affidavit lacked other sufficient material facts to indicate a fair probability that cannabis would be found in Raulerson's home.”
The court's explanation of why the affidavit was deficient—it needed additional facts showing a pattern of drug activity, not just a single positive test.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing an anonymous complaint about drug activity at Raulerson's residence, police retrieved six bags of trash from the curb. Officers found two ca…
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 Motion To Suppress Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
Gayle Raulerson appeals from the trial court order denying her motion to suppress contraband found in her residence pursuant to a search warrant. The trial court denied the motion because it found that the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant provided the requisite probable cause. Our review of the record, however, leads us to conclude that the affidavit did not provide the required probable cause. Accordingly, we reverse.
Following an anonymous complaint that residents at Raulerson’s address were involved in drug activity, police went to Rauler-son’s home, where officers retrieved six bags of trash from the curb in front of the home. After searching through the bags individually, they found two cannabis cigarette butts, stems, seeds, and pieces of suspected cannabis. A field test of the pieces tested positive for cannabis. Based on this discovery, the officers obtained a search warrant. Execution of the warrant produced contraband.
Raulerson, arguing that the affidavit given in support of the warrant lacked probable cause, moved to suppress the evidence. The trial court found the affidavit sufficient and denied suppression.
We find merit in Raulerson’s argument. Although the affidavit contained relevant information that the substance found in the one-time trash pull tested positive for cannabis, we believe the affidavit lacked other sufficient material facts to indicate a fair probability that cannabis would be found in Raulerson’s home.
The instant case is distinguishable from State v. Jacobs, 437 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dismissed, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1983), where the court held an affidavit based on evidence retrieved in two separate trash pulls was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. The instant case is also distinguishable from those cases involving discovery 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] home at all hours of the day and night_” Id. at 165. Similarly in Scott v. State, 559 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) the affidavit contained not only information of a one-time trash pull leading to the discovery of narcotics, but also “information concerning activities at the [defendant’s] residence observed during surveillance by a Broward sheriffs deputy ... and information furnished to the sheriffs office by one of appellant’s neighbors concerning his observations of activities at the residence.” Id. at 272.
Because we find that the information contained in the affidavit in this case does not suggest a pattern of continuous drug activity, we reverse.
REVERSED.
GUNTHER, J., concurs.
SHAHOOD, J., dissents with opinion.
SHAHOOD, Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress. The facts in this case are in harmony with the facts in State v. Mayes, 666 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
My review of the record leads me to conclude that the affidavit contained sufficient material facts to indicate a fair probability that cannabis would be found in appellant’s home; therefore, sufficient probable cause existed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gesell v. State, 751 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ss evidence recovered from his home pursuant to a search warrant. He claims that the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant lacked sufficient probable cause for its issuance. We agree and reverse on the authority of Raulerson v. State, 714 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). In April 1998 Detective Sigmon of the St. Lucie Sheriffs Office received an anonymous phone cab from someone reporting suspected drug trafficking at appellant’s residence. The caller advised that there was a high volume of vehi…1 / 2
-
Arsenio Cruz, Jr. v. State, 788 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…83)), which noted that the resolution in marginal cases should be largely determined by the strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant. Appellant argues that suppression is warranted based on the authority of Raulerson v. State, 714 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and Gesell v. State, 751 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We agree. In Raulerson, appellant appealed the denial of a motion to suppress contraband found in her home pursuant to a search warrant. In that case, the police received…
-
Lavinia Baker v. State, 762 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…TAYLOR, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent because I think this case is indistinguishable from Raulerson v. State, 714 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). As in Raulerson, the affidavit for the search warrant in this case failed to “suggest a pattern of continuous drug activity” such that the court could find a fair probability that drugs would be located in the home. The eviden…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- State v. Mayes, 666 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)