STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTY MILLS, 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.
Florida's appeal of a narcotics conviction is affirmed because the search warrant affidavit failed to specify when the informant allegedly observed illegal activities at the defendant's premises.
A search warrant affidavit for narcotics violations must contain specific time or times when an informant allegedly obtained narcotics from the premises.
[1] A search warrant affidavit in a narcotics case must specify the particular time or times when an informant allegedly observed or obtained narcotics from the target premis…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 Affidavit and Warrant fail to show any facts or circumstances sufficient to show when the alleged informant learned of the alleged illegal activities at the premises . so that from the Affidavit and Warrant the Court is wholly unable to determine when said alleged illegal activities were observed at the premises.”
Trial judge's order granting motion to suppress, explaining the defect in the search warrant.
Appellee was charged with violating narcotics law based on evidence seized under a search warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace.…
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 Fourth Amendment Protections cases and more on FLexlaw
Pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A., we have dispensed with the necessity for oral argument and will consider the matter on the briefs submitted by the respective parties.
Appellee was charged with a violation of the narcotics law upon a seizure made under a search warrant issued by the Justice of the Peace. She filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized and the trial judge entered its order granting defendant’s motion to suppress. The State takes this appeal.
We have examined the affidavit for the search warrant together with the search warrant and find only one defect, but that defect brings us to an affirmance of the trial judge’s order granting the motion to suppress. The trial judge said in his order:
“The Court further finds that the Affidavit and Warrant fail to show any facts or circumstances sufficient to show when the alleged informant learned of the alleged illegal activities at the premises . so that from the Affidavit and Warrant the Court is wholly unable to determine when said alleged illegal activities were observed at the premises.” (Emphasis added.)
The affidavit and warrant should have contained specific time or times when the informant allegedly obtained narcotics from appellee’s premises.
For the foregoing reasons we affirm.
HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. State, 410 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…erally on the theory that the affidavit fails to provide the issuing magistrate probable cause to believe the crime occurred and is continuing to occur in the premises to be searched at the time of the issuance of the search warrant. State v. Mills, 267 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Orr v. State, 382 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The state argues the affidavit was sufficient, drawing our attention to Borras v. State, 229 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1969), appeal dismissed, 400 U.S. 808, 91 S.Ct. 70, 27 L.Ed.2d 37 (19…
-
ORR v. State, 382 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…rijuana was observed inside appellant’s house. There is no indication as to when the informant actually observed the marijuana. The affidavit should have contained the specific time or times when the informant observed the marijuana. State v. Mills, 267 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). Consequently, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the invalid search warrant. The judgment and sentence are REVERSED. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur…
-
State v. Schwarzbauer, 342 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…. The affidavit for the search warrant stated that a confidential informant had purchased drugs from the Appellee “within the last five days.” The trial court found this not to be sufficiently specific as required by our decision in State v. Mills, 267 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). In that case no allegation was included in the affidavit to fix the date when the alleged illegal activity occurred. In this case the illegal activity is narrowed to the five day period immediately preceding the application. Tho…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence