Harrington v. State, A-336

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtORVIL L. DAYTON; STURGIS, C. J., and WIGGINTON
Citation110 So.2d 495
PartiesRoosevelt HARRINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. A-336,A-336
Decision Date17 March 1959

Page 495

110 So.2d 495
Roosevelt HARRINGTON, Appellant,
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. A-336.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 17, 1959.
Rehearing Denied April 10, 1959.

Page 496

T. J. Jennings, Jr., Green Cove Springs, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Eugene P. Spellman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ORVIL L. DAYTON, Associate Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals from a conviction on the first count of an information charging him with having aided and assisted in the setting up, promotion and conduct of a lottery.

The court denied defendant's pre-trial motion seeking to quash a search warrant pursuant to which certain property used in lotteries was seized from him as an incident to his arrest, suppress the evidence obtained thereunder, and to have returned to him the property confiscated from him under such search warrant. The motion was based on the ground that the affidavit upon which the warrant issued did not show probable cause as required by Section 22, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. The property seized pursuant to the warrant was admitted in evidence at the trial over defendant's objections.

The subject property was seized from a taxicab operated by defendant. The affidavit upon which the search warrant issued was made by the sheriff of Putnam County on September 7, 1957. It properly described the thing to be searched as an automobile owned and operated by appellant as a taxicab in Palatka, Florida, and recited that he had reason to believe and did believe that such automobile was being used in connection with gambling. As reason for such belief affiant stated that on September 5, 1957, a confidential informer well known to affiant advised affiant that he, the informer, had personally been on certain premises in Palatka, Florida, on repeated occasions on Saturday evenings, and advised affiant that in his presence and sight lottery and bolita tickets and the money therefor had been deposited in a brown paper sack and the said sack thereupon been given to the said Roosevelt Harrington who promptly took it to the described automobile and placed it therein and thereupon drove off. Affiant further stated that the confidential informer advised affiant that such actions had occurred

Page 497

on the night of Saturday, August 31, 1957, and each Saturday theretofore for a long period of time; and affiant further stated that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • State v. Milligan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • October 7, 1976
    ...251 F.2d 579 (5 Cir. 1958); People v. Durazo, 52 Cal.2d 354, 340 P.2d 594, 597 (Sup.Ct.1959) (dissenting opinion); Harrington v. State, 110 So.2d 495, 497 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1959), appeal dismissed, 113 So.2d 231 5 8 Wigmore, supra, 2374 at 764 quoting from Worthington v. Scribner, 109 Mass. ......
  • State v. Zamora, 86-3079
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 6, 1988
    ...Spataro v. State, 179 So.2d 873, 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); State v. Hardy, 114 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Harrington v. State, 110 So.2d 495, 497-98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). The underlying rationale for this limited privilege is based on strong public policy considerations which, in turn, ser......
  • State v. Hassberger, s. 48444 and 48445
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 26, 1977
    ...of a confidential informer is well established under Florida law. Treverrow v. State, 194 So.2d 250 (Fla.1967); Harrington v. State, 110 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Spataro v. State, 179 So.2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Even where the informer never testifies at a trial or hearing, but simp......
  • State v. Dolce, A--36
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • January 20, 1964
    ...F.2d 293 (9 Cir. 1955); People v. Durazo, 52 Cal.2d 354, 340 P.2d 594, 76 A.L.R.2d 257 (1959) (dissenting opinion); Harrington v. State, 110 So.2d 495 (Fla.D.Ct.App.1959). The public interest to be served by preserving the free flow of information of criminal activities, and by employing in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT