JAMES GESELL, 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 challenges a search warrant for his home, arguing the affidavit lacked sufficient probable cause. The court agrees, holding that an anonymous tip of drug activity combined with a single trash pull revealing only 0.1 grams of marijuana is insufficient to establish probable cause for a search warrant.
The court holds that a single trash pull revealing a residual amount of marijuana, coupled with an uncorroborated anonymous tip, does not constitute probable cause for issuance of a search warrant. The court reversed the denial of the motion to suppress.
[1] An anonymous tip of suspected drug activity, coupled with a single trash pull revealing a residual amount of marijuana, is insufficient to establish probable cause for a…
[2] Probable cause for a search warrant requires more than an uncorroborated anonymous tip and the discovery of a small quantity of contraband in a single trash pull.
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“a single trash pull, revealing the presence of a residual amount of marijuana in a plastic bag, coupled with an anonymous tip of suspected drug activity that is uncorroborated by the officers' observations, is sufficient to constitute probable cause for issuance of a search warrant”
States the central legal question the court addresses regarding the sufficiency of probable cause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn April 1998, Detective Sigmon received an anonymous tip reporting suspected drug trafficking at appellant's residence, noting high vehicular traffic…
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 Good Faith Exception (United States V. Leon) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress 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 vehicular traffic at appellant’s residence from around 4:00 in the afternoon until midnight. Because the visitors only stayed for short periods of time, the caber suspected that drugs were being sold at the house.
Based on the anonymous tip, Detective Sigmon and other detectives effectuated a trash pull. On April 9, 1998, at approximately 2:00 a.m., the detectives drove up to appellant’s house and obtained a garbage bag from the curb. Inside the garbage bag, the detective found a two gabon zip lock baggie with one-tenth (0.1) of a gram of marijuana. Thereafter, on April 24, 1998, the detectives obtained a search warrant, and, upon execution of the warrant, recovered numerous ibegal substances from appellant’s home.
The issue in this case is whether a single trash pull, revealing the presence of a residual amount of marijuana in a plastic bag, coupled with an anonymous tip of suspected drug activity that is uncorroborated by the officers’ observations, is sufficient to constitute probable cause for issuance of a search warrant. In our recent decision in Raulerson v. State, 714 So. 2d 536, we addressed this issue on facts indistinguishable from those in this case. There, following an anonymous complaint that residents at Raulerson’s address were involved in drug activity, police collected trash from the front curb of the home and found two cannabis cigarette butts, stems, seeds, and cannabis particles. Based on these facts, the officers obtained a search warrant and recovered contraband from the home. We reversed the denial of the motion to suppress, finding that the fact that a controlled substance was found during a one-time trash pub from garbage outside the defendant’s home was not sufficient, either by itself or in conjunction with an anonymous tip that the residents at that address were dealing in narcotics, to indicate a fair probabbity that cannabis would be found in the defendant’s home.
In this case, as in Raulerson, the officers did not conduct any surveillance or independent follow-up investigation to corroborate the anonymous tip, perform additional garbage pulls, or develop any other facts to show a pattern of continuous drug activity and establish a fair probability that cannabis would be found on the prem ises. Moreover, there was nothing found in the contents of the trash here that, in and of itself, supported a reasonable conclusion that additional contraband would be found in the house.
We reject the state’s argument that the “good faith” exception of United, State v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3430, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) applies where, as here, the officers’ reliance upon a warrant based upon an affidavit so deficient in indicia of probable cause fails to manifest the objective good faith standard required by Leon. See Tim v. State, 553 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Van Pieterson, 550 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying appellant’s motion to suppress.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DELL, STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arsenio Cruz, Jr. v. State, 788 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…hould 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 an anonymous complaint that drug activity was occurring…1 / 2
-
State v. Gross, 833 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…warrant “had a substantial basis for ... conclud[ing] that probable cause existed.” Id. (citation omitted); see Lopez v. State, 775 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Baker v. State, 762 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). IV. Relying on Gesell v. State, 751 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the trial court ruled that the single inspection of trash at the new address was not sufficient to corroborate the anonymous tip. The trial court expressed some uncertainty on the point, however, and indicated that appellate rev…
-
State v. Colitto, 929 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ns of activities at the residence.” Id. at 272. 714 So. 2d at 537. In other words, our decision did not turn on the number of trash searches but on the character of all the cognizable information known by the police. Similarly, in Gesell v. State, 751 So. 2d 104, 105-06 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), we assessed the nature and character of the cognizable information known to police: In this case, as in Raulerson, the officers did not conduct any surveillance or independent follow-up investigation to corroborate the…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984)
- State v. VAN Pieterson, 550 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Raulerson v. State, 714 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Ve Ve Muriel TIM v. State, 553 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)