Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 12 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--112,75--112 |
| Parties | Thomas Ray JOHNSON and Deborah Johnson, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Earl Cox, Bradenton, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellants challenge the judgments below finding them guilty of felony possession of marijuana and felony possession of narcotics paraphernalia. Specifically, they assert the contraband was seized pursuant to an invalid search warrant. We agree.
On July 10, 1974, Deputy Roy Little of the Manatee County Sheriff's Office received a telephone call from one Jim Jones of the Toledo, Ohio Police Department. Jones informed Little that he had in custody one John Rodgers for possession of marijuana. The caller then related to Little that Rodgers had told him (Jones) that there was a quantity of marijuana (1200 pounds) located in a white van on the premises of one of the defendants, Tom Johnson, in the Bradenton, Florida area. Directions as to the location of these premises were also given.
Little also spoke with the informant Rodgers who stated that the defendant, Tom Johnson, was also in possession of a quantity of cocaine, but that he did not know where it was kept on the premises. Rodgers stated further that he last saw the marijuana within the white van on or about a previous Friday night, July 5.
Little stated he had no knowledge of Jones or Rodgers nor had he ever had any previous or subsequent contact with either of them. Following the termination of this telephone conversation, Little made a search of the Manatee County Sheriff's records and determined that the defendant, Thomas Johnson, was living at the address described as of April 16, 1974. Acting upon the information received, Little and other sheriff's deputies then placed the defendant's home under surveillance. No illegal or suspicious activity was observed during the brief two-hour period of surveillance.
After Little's return to the sheriff's office in the early morning hours of July 11, he prepared an affidavit and a proposed search warrant for the home of the defendants based solely on the information received in the telephonic tip.
Thereafter at approximately 5:30 A.M. Little went to the home of Roberta P. Knowles, a County Judge in Manatee County, and delivered to her the affidavit and proposed warrant. Judge Knowles acknowledged the affidavit and signed the warrant. The search warrant authorized a search of the premises without specifying the white van. Upon issuance of the warrant, Little and the other officers returned to the home of the defendants. The warrant was then executed and a search of the home and the van produced a certain quantity of narcotics and paraphernalia.
At the ensuing suppression hearing, briefs were filed on the validity of the warrant and affidavit. The trial judge denied the motions to suppress and the defendants were convicted. This appeal followed.
The only issue for our determination 1 is whether the affidavit submitted by Deputy Little was sufficient to support the search warrant as issued. It is axiomatic that an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observation of the affiant. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); State v. Middleton, 302 So.2d 144 (Fla.1st DCA 1974). It is equally well recognized that the use of hearsay statements to support search warrants is subject to the standards of the probable cause test. Aguilar, supra; Andersen v. State, 274 So.2d 228 (Fla.1973). The existence of probable cause herein must be based upon the information which was available to the affiant Little at the time he executed the affidavit. This conclusion is required since no independent observation or knowledge of any criminal activity on the part of the defendants was conveyed to the sheriff's office on or about the time of the warrant's execution. Thus this case differs from those situations where the affidavit supporting the warrant is based in part on information received from a confidential informant. Cf. State v. Smith, 233 So.2d 396 (Fla.1970); Findlay v. State, 316 So.2d 33 (Fla.1975). Here the affidavit supporting the warrant is based entirely on the tip received by Little from the purported police officer and his prisoner in Ohio.
We think this case falls short of the standards enunciated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McManus, 80-1092
...is not prejudiced. Hoffman v. State, 397 So.2d 288 (Fla.1981); State v. Buffa, 347 So.2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Johnson v. State, 339 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976); Cain v. State, 287 So.2d 69 (Fla.1973); Arnold v. State, 83 So.2d 105 We reverse the order granting the motion to suppress a......
-
State v. Bond
...there must be an indication that the informant is reliable and that the information was obtained in a reliable manner. Johnson v. State, 339 So.2d 667 (Fla.2d DCA 1976) (1976). See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed. 723 (1964). There was no showing made of the reliabili......
-
Whitley v. State
...were proper and Hitchcox should have been permitted to answer. See Treverrow v. State, 194 So.2d 250 (Fla.1967); Johnson v. State, 339 So.2d 667 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Nevertheless, the state failed to make a proffer of what he would have said, and there is no indication that Hitchcox had been ......