STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGIE E. CRISP, 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 an affidavit for a search warrant based on hearsay, including information from a confidential informant and a fellow officer, is sufficient if it meets the standard set forth in State v. Middleton.
The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence based on an allegedly inadequate search warrant affidavit. The affidavit relied en…
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 Hearsay In Affidavits cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. The state appeals. We reverse and remand.
At issue is the adequacy of the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based.
Shall we follow Wolff v. State, 291 So. 2d 15 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974), as did the trial court, or shall we follow State v. Middleton, 302 So. 2d 144 (1st D.C.A.Fla. 1974), or shall we choose yet some other route? We choose the precedent of Middleton as representing the correct and more preferable position.
The affidavit before us was based totally on hearsay — what was told to the affiant. He had the report of the crime, plus information furnished by a confidential informant, plus information and corroboration furnished by a fellow police officer. Wolff holds that a stricter rule applies to a private dwelling with reference to search warrant affidavits. It requires that the affiant, himself, be the creditable witness and that the affiant be the one who has personal knowledge of the facts. The instant affidavit is insufficient under the Wolff criteria.
Middleton takes the opposite tack and does not require that the affidavit be based on the personal knowledge of the affiant. Under its criteria the affidavit before us is clearly sufficient.
We reverse upon authority of State v. Middleton, supra, and Paula v. State, 188 So. 2d 388 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1966), see State v. Compton, 301 So. 2d 810 (2d D.C.A.Fla. 1974), contra Wolff v. State, 291 So. 2d 15 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974).
Defendant asks that, if we reject Wolff and reverse, this court remand for a fur ther hearing to determine if the items seized were described with sufficient particularity and to determine whether the affidavit was properly incorporated into the search warrant. Upon examination, we feel that this suggestion is without merit and that the descriptions and incorporation were adequate.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Romerio Walker and Christina Young, 729 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…idavit in which the affiant properly and irrefutably alleged facts directly relayed to him by a fellow officer. See State v. Siluk, 567 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)(information used to obtain warrant was provided by fellow officer); State v. Crisp, 307 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Those facts provided probable cause to believe that contraband would be found within the appellees’ residence. See Younger v. State, 433 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)(stating that a plain view finding of contraband within a res…
-
Kaplan v. State, 347 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…pply regardless of who signs the application.2 We have also examined the contents of the application and find them sufficient to support the issuance of the warrant. AFFIRMED. MAGER, C. J., and ALDERMAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. . State v. Crisp, 307 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); State v. Niles, 307 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). . Sections 933.04 and 933.07, Florida Statutes (1975).…
-
State v. Niles, 307 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ed upon Wolff v. State, Fla.App.1974, 291 So. 2d 15, and the trial judge, though disagreeing in principle, felt obligated to follow that decision of the Third District Court of Appeal. This court declined to follow the Wolff case in State v. Crisp, 307 So. 2d 454, opinion filed February 7, 1975, as did the First District Court of Appeal in State v. Middleton, Fla.App. 1974, 302 So. 2d 144. Unfortunately, neither of said decisions was [*456] available to the trial judge when he entered the order which is the…
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
- Paula v. State, 188 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Wolff v. State, 291 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- State v. Compton, 301 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Solomon HAM v. State, 302 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)