STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK WILLIAM BOND AND MARC STEVEN AUNE, APPELLEES
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order suppressing a search warrant, holding that the warrant was supported by insufficient probable cause. Although the trial judge found the warrant fatally defective for not being directed to anyone, the appellate court affirmed on the independent ground that the affidavit contained only unsubstantiated hearsay from an unnamed, unverified confidential informant without adequate corroboration.
The court affirmed the suppression of the warrant, holding that hearsay evidence alone cannot provide sufficient probable cause without an indication that the informant is reliable and that the information was obtained in a reliable manner. The affidavit was deficient because it did not establish the reliability of the unnamed confidential informant and contained no meaningful details of the affiant's investigation to corroborate the informant's allegations.
[1] Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is determined solely by the facts stated within the warrant and its supporting affidavit.
[2] An affidavit resting on hearsay from an unidentified confidential informant must demonstrate the informant's reliability and the reliable manner in which the information…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Probable cause for issuance of a search warrant is determined solely with reference to the facts stated in the warrant and the supporting affidavit.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing probable cause determinations for search warrants
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Lee County Deputy Sheriff obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit alleging that a confidential informant had seen a large quantity of mariju…
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 Informant Information cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, State of Florida, brings this timely interlocutory appeal of an order granting a motion to suppress. The trial judge found that the search warrant was fatally defective because it was not “directed to anyone.” We affirm the order of the court but find it unnecessary to consider the propriety of that finding since there was insufficient probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant.
Probable cause for issuance of a search warrant is determined solely with reference to the facts stated in the warrant and the supporting affidavit. E. g. State v. Knapp, 294 So. 2d 338 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). See Section 933.18, Florida Statutes. In the case before us the affiant, a Lee County Deputy Sheriff, swore' to the following facts to show sufficient probable cause:
The affiant’s reasons for his beliefs that the laws of the State of Florida are being ciolated [sic] as stated above and the facts establishing the frounds [sic] for this Affidavit and the probable cause for believing that such facts exist, as follows: The affiant has received information from a confidential informant that said informant has seen a large quantity of marijuana in the above described premises within five days prior to the execution of the affidavit. The informant has purchased some of this marijuana and it has been checked and is Cannabis Sativa. The informant has appeared before a magistrate of this county and sworn to the truth of the statements contained in this affidavit. The affiant has checked the information through investigation and found it to be accurate.
The warrant does not independently establish other facts to support a finding of probable cause.
The affidavit rests on hearsay from an unidentified confidential informant. For hearsay evidence alone to provide sufficient probable cause there must be an indication that the informant is reliable and that the information was obtained in a reliable manner. Johnson v. State, 339 So. 2d 667 (Fla.2d DCA 1976) (1976). See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). There was no showing made of the reliability of the informant in the case before us. While an affiant’s own knowledge or investigation may serve to corroborate the reliability of a confidential informant the affidavit before us is devoid of any details of the affiant’s “investigation.” See United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971), Findlay v. State, 316 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1975). In State v. Collins, 317 So. 2d 846 (Fla.2d DCA 1975) an affidavit was found sufficient where the named informant had sworn to the facts stated in the affidavit before the issuing magistrate. In the case before us an unnamed informant had sworn to the truth of the statement before an unnamed magistrate. The appearance of the informant before another magistrate would not enable the issuing magistrate to determine the existence of probable cause or to test the credibility of the informant.
Accordingly the order of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
SCHEB, J., and GOBBIE, EVELYN M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1991)…cause existed. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. • 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted). Confining our inquiry entirely to the four corners of the affidavit, as required by law, e.g., State v. Bond, 341 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see § 933.18, Fla.Stat. (1989); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(h)(1) (1990), the next question is whether the factual allegations created a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. We believe they did. III. Probable Ca…
-
Pilieci v. State, 991 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…for evidence of a crime and to seize that evidence. In order to assure compliance with the rule of law and to permit review of that decision by another court, the magistrate must consider solely the facts stated in the affidavit. See State v. Bond, 341 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see also § 933.18, Fla. Stat. (2005); Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 806 (Fla. 2002). The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in…
-
Burnett v. State, 848 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…Mr. Burnett, the officer concluded that Mr. Burnett’s computer contained pornographic images. Probable cause analysis focuses not on the evidence that is found as a result of the search but on facts known at the moment of seizure. See State v. Bond, 341 So. 2d 218, 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (“Probable cause for issuance of a search warrant is determined solely with reference to facts stated in the warrant and supporting affidavit.”). Here, the conclusion that images remained on Mr. Burnett’s computer was not sup…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (U.S. 1964)
- United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1971)
- State v. Knapp, 294 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Findlay v. State, 316 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1975)
- Johnson v. State, 339 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- State v. Collins, 317 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)