Polk v. Williams, No. 89-2232

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPETERSON; DANIEL, C.J., and HARRIS
Citation565 So.2d 1387
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly D2184 John E. POLK, etc., Appellant, v. Dorothea WILLIAMS, Appellee.
Decision Date30 August 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-2232

Page 1387

565 So.2d 1387
15 Fla. L. Weekly D2184
John E. POLK, etc., Appellant,
v.
Dorothea WILLIAMS, Appellee.
No. 89-2232.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
Aug. 30, 1990.

Page 1388

Gayle S. Swedmark and Jennifer Parker LaVia of Parker, Skelding, Labasky & Corry, Tallahassee, for appellant.

William H. Morrison of William H. Morrison, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for appellee.

PETERSON, Judge.

This is a civil action arising from the execution of a search warrant alleged by Dorothea Williams to have been issued without probable cause. John E. Polk, Sheriff of Seminole County, appeals a summary judgment of liability entered against him upon Williams' complaint for false imprisonment during execution of the warrant and negligent invasion of her right of privacy. We reverse.

Williams argued that no probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant since it was not supported by a sufficient

Page 1389

affidavit. Her complaint alleged that Deputy Scott, who prepared the affidavit, did not personally observe some of the events described in it, that he based his recitations on impermissible hearsay statements, and that materially he misstated facts. Deputy Scott's affidavit related that he searched and audio-"bugged" an informant and that he supplied the informant with cash for a "buy" of cocaine. The affidavit states that Officer Tolleson, a member of another law enforcement agency, drove the informant to a point in close proximity to Williams' residence at 702 Brentwood Street and watched the informant walk to the residence. The affidavit states that Scott monitored the body bug and that he heard the informant speak with someone called Lionell, after which Lionell walked into the residence, then exited it shortly thereafter, and spoke with the informant. Scott states in his affidavit that he heard a narcotics transaction between the informant and Lionell, that after the transaction the informant returned to Tolleson's car, gave Tolleson two pieces of crack cocaine, said that he had purchased them from Lionell, and that he had observed additional cocaine in Lionell's possession. Scott concluded that "[b]ased on the above facts it is the belief of your affiant that controlled substances to wit: cocaine, are being stored at and sold from [Williams' residence]...." It is important to note the affidavit indicated that Lionell exited the residence shortly after entering it.

Officer Tolleson's incident report indicated that, after he saw Lionell enter the residence, he drove around the block with the informant as a passenger, and that, when he returned to the front of the residence, Lionell was outside. The informant then exited the car and purchased the cocaine from Lionell. Scott testified that, although Tolleson had signed the incident report in the form of an affidavit, he did not base his request for a search warrant upon it. He, instead, incorporated Tolleson's oral reports into the affidavit.

Williams asserts that, after redaction of false and misleading statements in Scott's affidavit, no probable cause was shown by the affidavit. The alleged false or misleading portions of the affidavit include:

1. The affidavit contained information obtained from the informant and Tolleson without revealing the source of the information.

2. The affidavit implied firsthand knowledge on the part of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • State v. Peterson, No. 92,692.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 17 Junio 1999
    ...3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ("This so-called fellow officer rule has been applied to search warrants as well as arrests."); Polk v. Williams, 565 So.2d 1387, 1390 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In Polk, the district court relied on United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 111, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684......
  • State v. Irizarry, No. 5D06-545.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 22 Diciembre 2006
    ...persons, not legal technicians, act. Brinegar v. U.S., 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); see also Polk v. Williams, 565 So.2d 1387, 1390 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The trial court in determining probable cause must examine the four corners of the affidavit. Our duty in reviewing ......
  • Schmitt v. State, No. 76317
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 14 Noviembre 1991
    ...for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the requirement of probable cause is satisfied. Polk v. Williams, 565 So.2d 1387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In the same vein, the United States Supreme Court has The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, co......
  • Johnson v. State, No. 78337
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 13 Julio 1995
    ...investigating a crime is imputed to any one of their number, even those from different agencies working together. Polk v. Williams, 565 So.2d 1387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). This effectively means that hearsay from other officers can be repeated by the affiant officer to establish probable We bel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • State v. Peterson, No. 92,692.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 17 Junio 1999
    ...3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ("This so-called fellow officer rule has been applied to search warrants as well as arrests."); Polk v. Williams, 565 So.2d 1387, 1390 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In Polk, the district court relied on United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 111, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684......
  • State v. Irizarry, No. 5D06-545.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 22 Diciembre 2006
    ...persons, not legal technicians, act. Brinegar v. U.S., 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); see also Polk v. Williams, 565 So.2d 1387, 1390 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The trial court in determining probable cause must examine the four corners of the affidavit. Our duty in reviewing ......
  • Schmitt v. State, No. 76317
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 14 Noviembre 1991
    ...for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the requirement of probable cause is satisfied. Polk v. Williams, 565 So.2d 1387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In the same vein, the United States Supreme Court has The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, co......
  • Johnson v. State, No. 78337
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 13 Julio 1995
    ...investigating a crime is imputed to any one of their number, even those from different agencies working together. Polk v. Williams, 565 So.2d 1387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). This effectively means that hearsay from other officers can be repeated by the affiant officer to establish probable We bel......
  • 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