Haworth v. State, 93-02063
| Decision Date | 15 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-02063,93-02063 |
| Citation | 637 So.2d 267 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D853 Chester F. HAWORTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Philip S. Prosch of Surfus & Prosch, Sarasota, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant, Chester F. Haworth, challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence against him, arguing that the affidavit in support of a warrant to search his residence failed to establish probable cause to conduct such a search. We agree and reverse.
On September 25, 1992, a detective from the Sarasota County Sheriff's Department obtained, and thereafter executed, a search warrant for Haworth's residence. The affidavit in support of the warrant asserted that the detective had been contacted by two postal inspectors, who advised that a pornographic videotape had been recovered from another postal employee. According to the affidavit, the pornography depicted on the tape involved Haworth, who was also a post office employee, and a female, who was possibly underage. A label on the videotape bore the date May 6, 1991, which was more than sixteen months prior to the date on which the affidavit was being submitted. From that label, the detective concluded that the activities depicted on the videotape must have taken place on May 6, 1991, and, given the nature of the activity, established probable cause to charge Haworth with lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under sixteen.
At the hearing on Haworth's motion to suppress, the detective who prepared the affidavit testified that, based on his experience with those who sexually abuse and exploit children, Haworth was probably the type who would retain his pornographic contraband. The detective therefore determined, upon submitting the affidavit at issue, that there was probable cause to suspect that pornographic material would currently be found at Haworth's residence.
In Smith v. State, 438 So.2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), this court stated:
The length of time between the events relied upon to obtain a search warrant and the date of issuance bears upon probable cause. Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206, 53 S.Ct. 138, 77 L.Ed. 260 (1932). Generally, as the time period increases there is less likelihood that the items sought to be seized will be found on the premises described in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cano v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...evidence to show that the defendant is guilty.I think that's different from what we've got in here. And I read [Haworth v. State, 637 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)], which was pretty close, and they never do say it couldn't be used, the expertise part of it. It doesn't say that. It just say......
-
Pilieci v. State
...tends to use the thirtieth day as an indicator of staleness, see Rodriguez v. State, 297 So.2d 15, 18 (Fla.1974); Haworth v. State, 637 So.2d 267, 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Hamelmann v. State, 113 So.2d 394, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), much of the trial court's focus was on the issue of stalenes......
-
State v. Vanderhors
...there is less likelihood that the items sought to be seized will be found on the premises described in the warrant." Haworth v. State, 637 So.2d 267, 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (citation omitted) (quoting Smith v. State, 438 So.2d 896, 897-98 (Fla. 2d DCA Recently, this court found in Jenkins t......
-
State v. Jenkins, 2D03-2708.
...there is less likelihood that the items sought to be seized will be found on the premises described in the warrant. Haworth v. State, 637 So.2d 267, 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (quoting Smith v. State, 438 So.2d 896, 898 (Fla. 2d DCA Here, the affidavit notes that Sechrest found and watched a vi......