Dixon v. State, 87-357
| Decision Date | 02 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-357,87-357 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2144,511 So.2d 1094 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2144 Carlton George DIXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John D. Hooker, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Carlton George Dixon appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of an allegedly defective search warrant. We reverse.
Dixon was charged in a three-count information with trafficking in cocaine, sale of cocaine, and possession of cocaine. He filed a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. The trial court denied the motion, and Dixon pled no contest to the charges, reserving his right to appeal the ruling on the motion to suppress. The judge sentenced Dixon to prison for four and one-half years.
Dixon argues that the search warrant was not based on probable cause because the affidavit supporting it failed to state the date when the controlled buy of cocaine was made by the confidential informant. The supporting affidavit to the search warrant issued herein reads in pertinent part Florida Power subscriber information shows the power at said residence to be listed under the name of DEVON A. MILLS since August 13, 1985. Your Affiant states that while inside said residence it appeared that said residence was under the custody and control of several Jamaican Males, and the laws pertaining to the sale and possession of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, Florida State Statute 893.13 are being violated.
Your Affiant's reason for his belief is that in his capacity as a Police Officer for the City of St. Petersburg, your Affiant had occasion to enter said residence along with a confidential informant, said confidential informant's reliability has been previously established by your Affiant in that he has given information pertaining to ongoing narcotic investigations which has been independently verified by your Affiant, while inside said residence, said confidential informant was kept under constant visual surveillance by your Affiant. Your Affiant and said confidential informant purchased a substance said to be cocaine, from a Jamaican Male and were invited back by a Jamaican Male, to purchase more cocaine.
As can be seen, the affidavit does not allege when the informant and the police officer observed the illegal transaction. The affidavit was dated September 18, 1985. The search warrant was served September 20, 1985.
While there is no strict rule as to the permissible number of days which may elapse between the date of the observed offense and the making of an affidavit upon which a search warrant is based, generally, the nearer the time at which the observation is made to the time when the affidavit is executed, the more probable it is that probable cause may be justified. The number of days elapsing between the observation of the alleged offense and the day on which the affidavit is executed is always the critical main factor. Hamelmann v. State, 113 So.2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959).
In Rand v. State, 484 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), this court held that an affidavit supporting a search warrant must contain the specific time or times that the informant observed the illegal activity. The affidavit held insufficient in Rand stated only that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Enstice
...informant observed the pornographic video tape [sic] within the residence of the Defendant." The court relied on Dixon v. State, 511 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Rand v. State, 484 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); and King v. State, 410 So.2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Each of the cases relied......
-
Bonilla v. State
...State v. Van Pieterson, 550 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Thompson v. State, 548 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Dixon v. State, 511 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Howard v. State, 483 So.2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA We conclude that the evidence establishes that Sergeant Lee's reading of the Apri......
-
State v. Moise
...of the controlled drug buys are clearly spelled out in the affidavit herein. This distinguishes the instant case from Dixon v. State, 511 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), relied on by the defendant in support of her claim that Leon is ...
-
State v. Jenkins, 2D03-2708.
...must contain a specific time when the illegal activity that forms the basis for issue of the warrant was observed. Dixon v. State, 511 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). This is [t]he length of time between the events relied upon to obtain a search warrant and the date of issuance bears upon pr......