Boyle v. State

• Citation: 669 So.2d 330
• Decision Date: 13 March 1996
• Docket Number: No. 94-3100,94-3100
• Parties: 21 Fla. L. Weekly D633 Gregory BOYLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 330

669 So.2d 330

21 Fla. L. Weekly D633

Gregory BOYLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 94-3100.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fourth District.

March 13, 1996.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Martin County; Dwight L. Geiger, Judge.

Stuart J. Mac Iver of Stuart J. Mac Iver, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William A. Spillias, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

SHAHOOD, Judge.

Appellant Gregory Boyle pled nolo contendere to simple possession of explosives, but reserved the right to appeal the court's denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, he maintains that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based was facially insufficient in that it failed to state that the officer had personal knowledge of the informant's reliability or that the officer corroborated the informant's information. We agree, and reverse.

Acting on a tip from a fellow law enforcement officer, Detective Rastrelli ("Rastrelli") conducted a four-month surveillance of appellant's residence. At the end of that time, Rastrelli filed an application for a warrant to search appellant's residence. Rastrelli's accompanying affidavit contained the following facts:

On 04/22/94, Detective Norm Proper of the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office advised your affiant that he received information from a past reliable source that has given reliable information in the past that has lead [sic] to seizures of narcotics and arrests.

Detective Proper advised your affiant that the confidential informant observed a quantity of cocaine powder within the last 72 hours of trafficking amount in the above described premises and its curtilage to be searched.

Your affiant has conducted surveillance on the above described premises and its curtilage to be searched in the past four (4) months and found that the subject, W/M, Gregory Boyle, has not put any garbage out at night as all other resident do on his street. In addition, Mr. Boyle does not appear to leave the above described premises and its curtilage to be searched to go to work. The windows are very darkly tinted and there are no address numbers affixed to the premises. Due to the surveillance conducted by your affiant and the information received from the confidential informant, your affiant believes the behavior of W/M, Gregory Boyle is indicative to that of someone who earns their [sic] living dealing in narcotics.

Based on the affidavit, Rastrelli obtained a warrant, executed it, and recovered narcotics, paraphernalia, and explosives. In denying appellant's motion to suppress, the trial court found that the affidavit sufficiently stated probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.

The trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct; therefore, on review, the court should interpret the evidence, including reasonable inferences, in the manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling. McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978). The trial court's denial of a motion to suppress must be "without basis in the evidence or predicated upon an incorrect application of the law." State v. Smith, 529 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that courts should consider an informant's veracity, reliability and basis of knowledge using a "totality of the circumstances" approach. Id. at 230-31, 103 S.Ct. at 2328. In other words, the magistrate should "make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the 'veracity'...