Smith v. State, 82-2236
| Decision Date | 16 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2236,82-2236 |
| Citation | 438 So.2d 896 |
| Parties | Henry SMITH and Torie Brandow, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard Mars and Jack T. Edmund of Edmund & McDaniel, Bartow, for appellants.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William E. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellants' convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana depended upon the validity of a search warrant. Their attack on the warrant was predicated primarily upon the staleness of facts set forth in the affidavit.
The affidavit for the warrant was signed on May 26, 1982, and the warrant was issued the same day. The affidavit first recited that the affiant was a narcotics investigator for the sheriff's office and detailed the affiant's experience in combating the trafficking of controlled substances. As a basis for probable cause, the affidavit then stated:
On 16 February 1982, your affiant was working in an undercover capacity in the Plant City area. At approximately 2:30 pm [sic] your affiant met with a black male known as "Quasar" at his residence of 805 1/2 South Thomas Street. The purpose of the meeting was to purchase a gram of cocaine. Your affiant made two previous purchases of cocaine from said subject at his residence and as in previous meetings, the subject said that he would have to go and obtain the cocaine from another location. The subject advised your affiant that he would bring the cocaine to a residence at 501 Ball Street, apartment number six, where your affiant resided in an undercover capacity. The subject "Quasar" received money from your affiant and left the scene in his vehicle, a 1965 Chevrolet Impala two door, bearing Florida license "NGE-158." Detective Jessie observed the subject arrive on Ohio Street at approximately 2:36 pm [sic] and walk towards a duplex apartment building. Subject "Quasar" left after approximately sixty seconds and arrived at 501 Ball Street, apartment number six, at 2:41 pm [sic] where he delivered one gram of cocaine to your affiant. Your affiant personally ran a field reagent test on said cocaine which showed positive.
On April 20, 1982, at approximately 5:10 pm [sic] Detective Tommy Jessie went to the residence of the subject "Quasar" and again discussed a purchase of cocaine. The subject, as in the previous transactions, received money from Detective Jessie and proceeded to go and obtain the cocaine while Detective Tommy Jessie remained at his residence of 805 1/2 South Thomas Street. Detective Jessie observed the subject leave and he was followed to the address of 506 East Ohio Street by Detective M. Harrison. Detective Harrison advised your affiant that the subject went directly to the address on Ohio Street when he departed from Detective Jessie. Your affiant observed the subject known as "Quasar" enter apartment number two of the duplex at 506 East Ohio Street where he emerged after approximately sixty seconds. The subject went directly to his vehicle and left the scene west bound on Ohio Street. Detective Harrison and your affiant servailled [sic] the subject while he proceeded directly to his residence and delivered .5 grams of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pilieci v. State
...cannot be interpreted to create any bright-line test. Indeed, we still adhere to the reasoning of then Judge Grimes in Smith v. State, 438 So.2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983): The length of time between the events relied upon to obtain a search warrant and the date of issuance bears upon probable ......
-
Com. v. Rice
...( "several months"); United States v. Derman, 23 F.Supp.2d 95, 99 & n. 4 (D.Mass.1998) (forty-seven days); Smith v. State, 438 So.2d 896, 897-898 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) (thirty-six days); People v. Clarke, 173 A.D.2d 550, 550, 570 N.Y.S.2d 305 (N.Y.A.D.1991) (forty-eight days); Tosh v. Stat......
-
State v. Singleton
...time between the events relied upon to obtain a search warrant and the date of issuance bears upon probable cause." Smith v. State, 438 So.2d 896, 897 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983). However, the " 'mere passage of time does not necessarily invalidate the supporting basis for the warrant.' " State ......
-
Montgomery v. State
...information is sufficiently fresh to support probable cause are as follows: (1) Pattern of ongoing criminal activity, Smith v. State, 438 So.2d 896 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983), which may be proven by repeated sales. State v. Moise, 522 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); (2) the nature of the object be......