LEWIS PAUL HYATT, JR., APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE (STATE)
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.
Defendant Hyatt appealed his conviction for marijuana possession after pleading nolo contendere, reserving the right to challenge the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the DEA agent's warrantless search lacked probable cause or trustworthy information.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the search lacked probable cause or trustworthy information to justify the warrantless seizure. The search was based solely on double hearsay and amounted to no more than a tip, which was insufficient to support the warrantless search and arrest.
[1] A warrantless search of an automobile is unlawful when based solely on double hearsay information amounting to no more than a tip, without probable cause or trustworthy i…
[2] A confidential informant's reliability, without supporting circumstances, is insufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless search.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“All of the information possessed by Mapes was double hearsay and amounted to no more than a tip. There was neither probable cause nor trustworthy information to justify the action taken by Mapes.”
States the court's core holding regarding why the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA DEA agent in Arizona received information from a confidential informant that someone wearing a red coat would fly from Arizona to Jacksonville carry…
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 Double Hearsay cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The defendant appeals from a judgment of guilt and sentence to prison which were entered after a plea of nolo contendere was made to a charge of possession of marijuana in excess of five grams, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
The issue for our determination, is whether the trial court erred in its denial of the motion to suppress.
Lyons, a special agent with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in Tucson, Arizona, obtained information from a confidential informant indicating that an individual wearing a red coat would leave Arizona by airplane bound for Jacksonville, Florida, and would be carrying controlled drugs. Lyons gave this information to Hendricks, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration office in Jacksonville, Florida, by telephone. A few hours later in the day, Lyons talked by telephone to Mapes, another special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration office in Jacksonville, Florida, and gave him more information. In addition, Lyons informed Mapes that the informant from whom he obtained the information was very reliable. However, he gave no circumstances to support his statement.
Mapes went to the Jacksonville International Airport where he began surveillance of the defendant. Subsequently, and based solely on the information furnished him by Lyons, but without a warrant, Mapes searched the automobile occupied by the defendant, arrested the defendant, and seized the controlled drugs. It was these drugs which defendant sought unsuccessfully to suppress.
All of the information possessed by Mapes was double hearsay and amounted to no more than a tip. There was neither probable cause nor trustworthy information to justify the action taken by Mapes. Sagonias v. State, 89 So. 2d 252 (Fla.1956).
The trial court erred in its denial of the motion to suppress. Therefore, we must reverse the judgment and sentence.
McCORD, J., concurs.
BOYER, C. J., dissents.
BOYER, Chief Judge
(dissents).
I respectfully dissent. The totality of the factual situation sub judice is very similar to that found in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), which in my view is controlling. I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hewitt, 495 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…and his own observations, as a trained police officer, at the Publix parking lot. In reaching this conclusion that Maxwell had a founded suspicion for his detention of defendant, I have not overlooked the cases cited by defendant. Hyatt v. State, 329 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1 DCA, 1976) dealt with probable cause to arrest based upon double hersay [sic], as distinguished from founded suspicion to detain. Sagonias v. State, 89 So. 2d 252 (Fla., 1956) also dealt with the inability to support a warrantless search of…
-
Quillian R. Addison v. State, 378 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…439 U.S. 853, 99 S.Ct. 163, 58 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978); Crawford v. State, 334 So. 2d 141, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Salas v. State, 246 So. 2d 621, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Compare Sagonias v. State, 89 So. 2d 252 (Fla.1966) relied upon in Hyatt v. State, 329 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.1976) (officer having firsthand knowledge didn’t testify); St. John v. State, 363 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). AFFIRMED. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925)
- Sagonias v. State, 89 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1956)