HOSIE BROWN, 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.
Appellant Brown challenges his cocaine trafficking conviction, arguing that the confidential informant's tip was stale when used to support the investigatory stop of his vehicle. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that a four-and-one-half hour delay between receiving information from a reliable confidential informant and acting on it does not render the information stale when the detective had legitimate reasons for the delay.
A four-and-one-half hour delay between receiving a confidential informant's tip and acting on it does not render the information stale when the tip was reliable and sufficient to create founded suspicion, and the detective had legitimate reasons for the delay.
[1] An investigatory stop is supported by founded suspicion when a reliable confidential informant provides information sufficient to create a reasonable belief of criminal a…
[2] A delay of four and one-half hours between receiving a confidential informant's tip and acting on it does not necessarily render the information stale if the tip was suff…
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“the four and one-half hour delay in acting on the confidential informant's tip, which was sufficient, when received, to create a 'founded' suspicion of criminal activity in the mind of Detective Hyde, did not render the information stale”
The court's holding on the central issue that timing alone does not make reliable information stale when there is a valid reason for the delay.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt 11:55 a.m., Detective Hyde received information from a reliable confidential informant that he had personally seen four to six ounces of cocaine in…
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 Information cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, C.J.
We affirm Appellant’s conviction for trafficking in cocaine. Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine and marijuana found in the car he was driving, asserting that the information that formed the basis for the investigatory stop was “stale.”
At 11:55 a.m., the morning of the stop, Detective Hyde of the Indian River County Sheriffs Office, was contacted by a reliable confidential informant who advised him that he had personally seen four to six ounces of cocaine in the vehicle that Appellant was driving. Detective Hyde was unable to act on this information immediately because he was preparing to execute a search warrant for drug possession at another house in the vicinity. At 4:80 p.m., the same day, Detective Hyde saw Appellant, who was driving the same car described by the informant, drive up to the house where the search warrant was to be executed; Appellant got out of the car, walked to the front door, stayed a few minutes, then returned to the car and left. Detective Hyde was unable to pursue Appellant because of the imminent execution of the search warrant, but he requested assistance of another police officer who stopped Appellant on Detective Hyde’s request. Canine assistance was called to the scene of the stop. Appellant refused to consent to a search of the vehicle and when asked for identification, he got into the car and fled the scene. Appellant eventually abandoned the car and fled on foot. A search of the vehicle revealed the aforementioned contraband.
The trial court properly concluded that the four and one-half hour delay in acting on the confidential informant’s tip, which was sufficient, when received, to create a “founded” suspicion of criminal activity in the mind of Detective Hyde, did not render the information stale. Austin v. State, 640 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We distinguish Jain v. State, 577 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), where the information conveyed to the detective was stale on receipt, and, therefore, could not form the basis for a founded suspicion necessary to support an investigatory stop.
KLEIN, J. and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rajeev Jain v. State, 577 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Austin v. State, 640 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)