KEY CARR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to quash the search warrant and suppress evidence, nor in refusing to disclose the informant's identity.
Appellant was convicted of lottery offenses. He appealed, arguing the search warrant was invalid and the informant's identity should have been disclos…
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 Quash Search Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried in the criminal court of record in Dade County, adjudged guilty of aiding or assisting in the conducting of a lottery and possession of lottery tickets and was sentenced to be imprisoned for 18 months. On appeal he contends the trial court committed error (1) in denying his motion to quash a search warrant and suppress the evidence obtained thereunder and (2) by refusing to require disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant referred to in the affidavit on which the search warrant was predicated.
On consideration of the record and briefs we conclude that no error has been made to appear. The warrant was issued for search of an automobile, on an affidavit alleging the probability of possession of lottery tickets based on “reliable information from a confidential and trustworthy in*227formant.” From disclosures in the record; the court was .entitled to conclude that the observation and . information thereof, on which the search warrant was issued, were made and received a day or so before the affidavit was made and warrant issued. There does not appear to be any set rule as to the number of days which may elapse between observation of the alleged offense and the making of the affidavit. Thus, in Hamelmann v. State, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 394, it was said in that connection that an interval of more than 30 days has been held to be such an unreasonable length of time as to negative a presumption of reasonable cause, but that a period of 20 days or less has generally been held not so unreasonable as to vitiate the search warrant.
The trial court was correct in denying the motion for disclosure of the confidential informant referred to in the search warrant affidavit. No special circumstances requiring such disclosure- were shown. See Harrington v. State, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 495; City of Miami v. Jones, Fla. App.1964, 165 So.2d 775.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Blackburn, 35 Fla. Supp. 202 (Seminole Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)…vit pertaining to the conducting of a wire tap on Orlando telephone number 295-8211 is stale because such information was ordered more than 30 days prior to the application and affidavit. See: Hamermann v. State, 113 So. 2d 394; Carr v. State, DCA3, 184 So. 2d 226. That the application did not contain a statement of the period of time for which interception was required to be maintained in keeping with the requirements of §934.09(1) (d). That the order attempting to change the period of interception of wire…
Authorities Cited
- Harrington v. State, 110 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Hamelmann v. State, 113 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- City OF Miami v. Jones, 165 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)