STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BILLY JOE COOK, 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 State appealed the suppression of evidence in a child pornography case, challenging the trial court's finding that the search warrant affidavit lacked probable cause. The appellate court reversed, holding that the citizen informant's detailed observations of child pornography on the defendant's computer provided sufficient probable cause and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied.
The court held that the citizen informant's information was sufficiently reliable and detailed to establish probable cause, as the affidavit revealed specific observations of 122 sexually explicit images of young children. The court further held that even if probable cause were insufficient, the good faith exception applied because the police made no omissions or misrepresentations and the magistrate judge had determined probable cause existed.
[1] Information provided by a citizen informant is presumed reliable for purposes of establishing probable cause.
[2] A citizen informant's observation of child pornography on computer files is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search warrant.
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“The information was provided by a citizen informant, and its reliability was therefore presumed.”
Establishes the legal standard that citizen informant tips carry a presumption of reliability in probable cause analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice obtained a search warrant for Cook's home based on an affidavit from Cook's neighbor, Mr. Williams, who reported accessing Cook's computer file…
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 Citizen Informant Reliability cases and more on FLexlaw
TORPY, J.
The State seeks review of the order suppressing evidence in this child pornography case. The evidence was seized during a search of Appellee’s home pursuant to a search warrant. The lower court determined that the affidavit in support of the warrant was devoid of sufficient facts to establish probable cause. Our de novo review causes us to conclude otherwise.
The affidavit in support of the warrant was based on information provided to police by Appellee’s next door neighbor, Mr. Williams. The trial court determined that the information supplied by Mr. Williams was not reliable because it was not corroborated by police. We reject this conclusion because the information was provided by a citizen informant, and its reliability was therefore presumed. State v. Maynard, 783 So. 2d 226, 230 (Fla.2001); State v. Woldridge, 958 So. 2d 455, 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); State v. Vallone, 868 So. 2d 1278, 1279-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
The trial court also concluded that the information provided by Mr. Williams was insufficient to establish a fair probability that evidence of the alleged crime would be found. We again disagree. The affidavit revealed that Mr. Williams told police that he had access to Appellee’s computer files through a shared hard wire connection. When he opened a file of Appellee’s labeled “XXX,” he saw 122 images of “young preteen girls in nude, sexually explicit positions.” The neighbor said that none of the girls appeared over thirteen years of age and some appeared as young as six. This information was clearly sufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant. See Vallone, 868 So. 2d at 1278-80 (citizen informant’s observation of child pornography on computer files sufficient to establish probable cause for search).
Even assuming the information was insufficient, we also agree with the State that this is a classic case for the application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The police officers did not omit information or make misrepresentations in the affidavit. The sole debate here is over the existence of probable cause. As we previously stated:
In this case, an experienced trial judge reviewed [the officer’s] affidavit and determined that probable cause existed to justify the issuance of a search warrant. The police executed the search pursuant to the warrant issued by the judge. In order to reject the application of the good faith exception in this case, we would need to conclude that an objectively reasonable police officer would have a better understanding of the law of search and seizure and probable cause than did the trial judge who issued the warrant. We are not willing to do so.
No indication exists in the record that either the police officer or the trial judge was corrupt, dishonest, or acted in bad faith. Accordingly, this case is controlled by the principle we articulated in State v. Harris, 629 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993):
The warrant was regular on its face and the affidavit upon which it was based was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause that the officer executing the warrant could not with reasonable objectivity rely in good faith on the magistrate’s probable cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant.
State v. Watt, 946 So. 2d 108, 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Harris, 629 So. 2d at 984).
Accordingly, we reverse the lower court’s order and remand this cause for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
EVANDER, J., concurs.
SAWAYA, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McGILL, 125 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…er, the good faith exception can apply to preclude suppression of evidence secured pursuant to an invalid warrant, even where the reviewing court determines that the facts in the affidavit do not demonstrate probable cause. See, e.g., State v. Cook, 972 So. 2d 958, 959-60 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (explaining that good faith exception applied where “the sole debate ... is over the. existence of probable cause” and where there was no indication that affidavit contained misrepresentations or omitted information); Sta…
-
Hall v. State, 11 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…orn affidavit or letter from the eyewitness Kenya Shaw which does not contain any disclaimer that the information in it is true and correct to the best of his information or belief. Moss v. State, 943 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Brooks v. State, 972 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). WARNER, TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ„ concur.…
-
Burton v. State, 23 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…and for reconsideration of the claim on the merits. See Butler v. State, 946 So. 2d 30, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Keen v. State, 855 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Smith v. State, 837 So. 2d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). But see Brooks v. State, 972 So. 2d 958, 958 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (affirming summary denial of rule 3.850 motion based on failure to include sworn statement of witness who had allegedly recanted); Moss v. State, 943 So. 2d 946, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that un-sworn letter attached…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Maynard, 783 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2001)
- State v. Watt, 946 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- State v. Harris, 629 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- State v. Woldridge, 958 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- State v. Vallone, 868 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)