RICHARD DUNCAN PEARSON, 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 appellate court affirmed a conviction for buying stolen property, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to reveal the identity of a confidential informant or in denying a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search incident to an arrest based on that informant's information.
No, the trial court did not err in refusing to reveal the informant's identity or in denying the motion to suppress. The arrest and search were lawful based on the corroborated information from the informant.
“In the circumstances presented, the trial court properly refused the motion to have the identity of the confidential informer revealed.”
Establishes the court's agreement with the trial court's decision regarding the informant's identity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was arrested without a warrant based on information from a confidential informant. A subsequent search revealed stolen property. The app…
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 Arrest Without Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
Richard Duncan Pearson was informed against, tried in the criminal court of record of Dade County, without a jury, and found guilty of the offense of buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen prop-' erty, for which he was sentenced to confinement for five years in the state penitentiary. He has appealed the judgment of conviction contending the trial court committed error in refusing his request that the identity of a confidential informer on whose information his arrest without a warrant came about, be revealed, and contending the trial court committed error in denying his motion to suppress the evidence which became disclosed on search and seizure upon the arrest. We have considered the appellant’s contentions in the light of the record and briefs and find them to be without merit. A detailed recitation of the facts and circumstances would serve no useful purpose.
In the circumstances presented, the trial court properly refused the motion to have the identity of the confidential informer revealed. Harrington v. State, Fla. App.1959, 110 So.2d 495. As authorized by § 901.15, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the arrest without a warrant, and the consequent search which revealed the stolen property in pos*426session and its seizure, were authorized on the basis of the information the arresting officers had received, and which they corroborated prior to arrest. The case of Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327, is in point, and sustains the arrest and search. See also Dasher v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 61.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…DCA 1982); State v. White, 418 So. 2d 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); State v. Martinez, 381 So. 2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Katz, 295 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); State v. Matney, 236 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Pearson v. State, 190 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So. 2d 814 (Fla.1967); Dasher v. State, 178 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 183 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1965).…
-
O'Neal Henry Pearson v. State, 221 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…night of August 25, 1966. Under the foregoing facts there was no error in the refusal of the trial Court to require the State to produce the informer or identify him. In a similar situation the 3rd District Court, in Pearson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 425, said: “In the circumstances presented, the trial court properly refused the motion to have the identity of the confidential informer revealed.” Decca v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 186 So. 2d 92, was a case strangely parallel to the case here both in p…
-
Pearson v. State, 200 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 190 So. 2d 425.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1959)
- Harrington v. State, 110 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Dasher v. State, 178 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)