DAVID J. THOMAS AND ISHAM POPE, APPELLANTS,
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 even if the arrest warrant affidavit was defective, the arresting officer's personal observation of sufficient facts justified the arrest and search without a warrant. The court also held that the informant's identity was not material to the case.
Appellants were convicted of violating State Beverage Laws. They appealed, arguing the arrest warrant affidavit was defective and the State should hav…
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 Identity Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, David J. Thomas and Isham Pope, were convicted after a non-jury trial, for violations of the State Beverage Laws. They have properly appealed from their judgments and sentences.
They contend, on appeal, that the trial court erred in that they were arrested under a search warrant, based on an affidavit which was fatally defective in that it did not allege sufficient particular facts to justify the issuance of the warrant.
Assuming, arguendo, that the affidavit and search warrant were fatally defective, the record supports the finding that one of the arresting officers had personally observed sufficient facts to justify him in *696making an arrest without a warrant and m making a search of the premises as an incident to such a lawful arrest. Pegueno v. State, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 600.
The appellants next contend that the trial court erred in not requiring the State to furnish the name of a confidential informant. This question has been answered in State v. Hardy, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 344, and Harrington v. State, Fla.App. 1959, 110 So.2d 495. The identity of the informant was in no way material to the issue involved herein. The arrest was based on the personal knowledge of one of the officers, and the defense was not misled or prejudiced when the trial judge refused to require the State to divulge the identity of the informant.
The judgments appealed from are
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Tamer, 475 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…e admissibility of the clothing evidence seized from the defendant following his [*920] arrest. Any defect in the warrant issued is irrelevant where the search and seizure are valid as incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant. Thomas v. State, 184 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). See generally United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974). Accordingly, I would reverse the order under review.…
Authorities Cited
- Harrington v. State, 110 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- State v. Hardy, 114 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Pegueno v. State, 85 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1956)