Hill v. State
| Decision Date | 24 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D18-3273,1D18-3273 |
| Citation | 307 So.3d 897 |
| Parties | John Nicholas HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mark V. Murray, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
John Nicholas Hill appeals his convictions for possessing a trafficking amount of cocaine, possession of cannabis with the intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to unseal the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant for the residence where Hill often stayed. He asserts that the trial court also erred by not reviewing the sealed affidavit in camera. We affirm because Hill did not make the necessary showing required to unseal the affidavit and because Hill did not preserve his argument on the need for in camera review.
Law enforcement secured a warrant to search the residence of Hill's former girlfriend and their children. Hill often stayed at the residence. After the warrant issued, the issuing judge sealed the affidavit used to obtain the warrant.
The next day, police officers executed the warrant at the residence. Hill was present on the premises. The officers found large quantities of cannabis and cocaine, drug paraphernalia, two loaded firearms, and $3,800 in cash. Based on the evidence obtained in the search, the State charged Hill with trafficking in cocaine, possession of cannabis with the intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
During discovery, the State provided Hill with a copy of the search warrant, but it did not produce a copy of the sealed affidavit used to secure the search warrant. Hill's counsel moved to unseal the affidavit, asserting that he needed to review it to determine whether the affidavit omitted material facts or contained false statements and whether there was probable cause to justify the issuance of the warrant.
The State opposed the motion, arguing that defense counsel failed to allege with specificity what in the affidavit he believed to be false, incorrect, or misleading. The State also asserted that unsealing the affidavit could prejudice ongoing criminal investigations by revealing confidential informants; by revealing the scope, status, and direction of ongoing criminal investigations; or prematurely disclosing the existence of investigatory tools.
The trial court heard argument on Hill's motion. When the hearing began, Hill's counsel agreed that he had the burden to show good cause why the trial court should unseal the affidavit. Counsel asserted that good cause existed because the affidavit and resulting search warrant depended on stale information. Hill testified at the hearing and contended that he did not sell, distribute, or manufacture drugs at the residence in the thirty days before the officers executed the warrant. Hill's counsel argued that if the affidavit was not based on sales or buys, Hill had a right to know what other information was used to obtain the warrant.
The prosecutor countered that the State did not charge Hill with sale of cocaine or cannabis, so Hill's testimony that he had not sold drugs from the residence in the past thirty days did not suggest any defect in the affidavit. And Hill did not testify that he had not possessed drugs at the residence in the past thirty days. The prosecutor insisted that Hill's request was a "back-door way" for Hill to discover the identity of the confidential informant. The prosecutor maintained that if she were to redact from the sealed affidavit all information related to the confidential informant and the investigative techniques used by the police, Hill would be left with a document containing only boilerplate language. The trial court orally denied the motion without comment. Hill did not seek rehearing or a written order on the motion.
Hill went to trial. The State presented the testimony of the officers who executed the search warrant and the officer who interviewed Hill. The officer testified that Hill confessed to selling drugs from the residence, stating, "I'm a drug dealer, y'all." The State also presented an audio recording in which Hill confessed to possessing and selling cocaine and cannabis.
The jury returned guilty verdicts on the counts for trafficking in cocaine, possession of cannabis with the intent to sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Hill later pleaded guilty to the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. This timely appeal follows.
We review a trial court's order denying or limiting criminal discovery for an abuse of discretion. See Blake v. State , 180 So. 3d 89, 102 (Fla. 2014).
Hill argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court denied him due process and his right to criminal discovery when it denied his motion to unseal the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant. And Hill contends that before it could deny the motion, the trial court had to review the sealed affidavit in camera. For the reasons below, we affirm.
When Hill moved to unseal the search warrant affidavit, he argued that he had a right to discover documents related to the search. Although a criminal defendant has no constitutional right to discovery, see Perry v. State , 395 So. 2d 170, 173 (Fla. 1980), under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b)(1)(I), the State must reveal to a defendant who has elected to participate in criminal discovery "whether there has been any search and any documents relating thereto." Still, not all documents related to a search are discoverable under rule 3.220.
The State asserted that it did not have to produce the affidavit to Hill because it contained information that could reveal the identity of a confidential informant and information on ongoing criminal investigations. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(g)(2), the State need not disclose a confidential informant "unless the confidential informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial or a failure to disclose the informant's identity will infringe the constitutional rights of the defendant." Nor must the State reveal the identity of a confidential informant "who merely furnishes the probable cause basis for a search or arrest." State v. Chamblin , 418 So. 2d 1152, 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The State must reveal information about a confidential informant only when the defendant shows that the disclosure is necessary for a specific defense. See Garcia v. State , 521 So. 2d 191, 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ().
Hill insists that he did not need to make such a showing because he was not seeking information about a confidential informant. But Hill misses the point. The State claimed that the sealed affidavit concealed so much sensitive information that redaction of the information about the confidential informant would leave a document containing only boilerplate language. So, based on the State's assertion, whether or not Hill was actively seeking the identity of the confidential informant, unsealing the search warrant affidavit could reveal the identity of a confidential informant. And because the State asserted that the sealed affidavit included information exempt from disclosure, the burden shifted to Hill to show a specific reason why disclosure was still warranted. See Treverrow v. State , 194 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1967) (); Chamblin , 418 So. 2d at 1154 (). A bare allegation that defense counsel is unable to prepare a defense without the requested information is not enough. See Thomas v. State , 28 So. 3d 240, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). And so, defense counsel's general argument in the trial court that he needed the affidavit to prepare Hill's defense was not sufficient to compel the trial court to unseal the affidavit.
Hill's counsel's specific reason for seeking disclosure also falls short of making the showing required to unseal the affidavit. At the hearing on the motion to unseal the affidavit, Hill's counsel argued that he believed the affidavit stemmed from stale information as no sales or distribution took place at the residence in the thirty days before the officers executed the search warrant.*
The State countered that the lack of drug activity at Hill's home before the execution of the warrant was immaterial because the State charged Hill with possession, not sale. And Hill did not testify that he did not possess drugs at the residence. After the State challenged the basis for Hill's motion to unseal the affidavit, Hill advanced no other reason why the information in the affidavit was necessary to prepare his defense. Because Hill did not meet his burden to show a specific reason why he needed access to the sealed affidavit that the State asserted contained information on a confidential informant, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without conducting an in camera review of affidavit. See State v. Carter , 29 So. 3d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ().
Even so, if Hill still believed that there was information in the affidavit to which he was entitled and wanted to challenge the State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porras v. Univ. of Fla.
...appeal committee. And thus, this Court cannot determine whether UF complied with this statutory requirement. See Hill v. State , 307 So. 3d 897, 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (explaining that appellants have the burden to show that an error occurred and to provide to the appellate court a record ......