State v. Bond, Nos. 76--1177

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtBOARDMAN; SCHEB, J., and GOBBIE, EVELYN M., Associate
Citation341 So.2d 218
PartiesSTATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Mark William BOND and Marc Steven Aune, Appellees.
Decision Date17 December 1976
Docket NumberNos. 76--1177,76--1178

Page 218

341 So.2d 218
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Mark William BOND and Marc Steven Aune, Appellees.
Nos. 76--1177, 76--1178.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 17, 1976.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1977.

Page 219

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

E. G. Couse of Grace, Falbey & Couse, Fort Myers, for appellees.

BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant, State of Florida, brings this timely interlocutory appeal of an order granting a motion to suppress. The trial judge found that the search warrant was fatally defective because it was not 'directed to anyone.' We affirm the order of the court but find it unnecessary to consider the propriety of that finding since there was insufficient probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant.

Probable cause for issuance of a search warrant is determined solely with reference to the facts stated in the warrant and the supporting affidavit. E.g. State v. Knapp, 294 So.2d 338 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). See Section 933.18, Florida Statutes. In the case before us the affiant, a Lee County Deputy Sheriff, swore to the following facts to show sufficient probable cause:

The affiant's reasons for his beliefs that the laws of the State of Florida are being ciolated (sic) as stated above and the facts establishing the frounds (sic) for this Affidavit and the probable cause for believing that such facts exist, as follows: The affiant has received information from a confidential informant that said informant has seen a large quantity of marijuana in the above described premises within five days prior to the execution of the affidavit. The informant has purchased some of this marijuana and it has been checked and is Cannabis Sativa. The informant has appeared before a magistrate of this county and sworn to the truth of the statements contained in this affidavit. The affiant has checked the information through investigation and found it to be accurate.

The warrant does not independently establish other facts to support a finding of probable cause.

The affidavit rests on hearsay from an unidentified confidential informant. For hearsay evidence alone to provide sufficient probable cause there must be an indication that the informant is reliable and that the information was obtained in a

Page 220

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....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Pilieci v. State, No. 2D06-4255.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 9, 2008
    ...review of that decision by another court, the magistrate must consider solely the facts stated in the affidavit. See State v. Bond, 341 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see also § 933.18, Fla. Stat. (2005); Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 806 (Fla. 2002). The task of the issuing magistrate......
  • Jenkins v. State, No. 79-157
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 12, 1980
    ...however, the police must demonstrate (1) that the informant is credible, and (2) that his information is reliable. State v. Bond, 341 So.2d 218 (Fla.2nd DCA 1976), cert. denied 348 So.2d 953 (Fla.1977). This is commonly known as the " 'two-pronged' Spinelli-Aguilar test", described in Davis......
  • Blue v. State, No. 82-2674
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 15, 1983
    ...residence and brought it to police, who identified substance as marijuana; reliability of informant not established); State v. Bond, 341 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 953 (1977) (same). As it has been succinctly stated in a similar context, "[t]here is no logical con......
  • Schmitt v. State, No. 76317
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 14, 1991
    ...(quotation marks omitted). Confining our inquiry entirely to the four corners of the affidavit, as required by law, e.g., State v. Bond, 341 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see Sec. 933.18, Fla.Stat. (1989); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(h)(1) (1990), the next question is whether the factual allegation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Pilieci v. State, No. 2D06-4255.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 9, 2008
    ...review of that decision by another court, the magistrate must consider solely the facts stated in the affidavit. See State v. Bond, 341 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see also § 933.18, Fla. Stat. (2005); Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 806 (Fla. 2002). The task of the issuing magistrate......
  • Jenkins v. State, No. 79-157
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 12, 1980
    ...however, the police must demonstrate (1) that the informant is credible, and (2) that his information is reliable. State v. Bond, 341 So.2d 218 (Fla.2nd DCA 1976), cert. denied 348 So.2d 953 (Fla.1977). This is commonly known as the " 'two-pronged' Spinelli-Aguilar test", described in Davis......
  • Blue v. State, No. 82-2674
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 15, 1983
    ...residence and brought it to police, who identified substance as marijuana; reliability of informant not established); State v. Bond, 341 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 953 (1977) (same). As it has been succinctly stated in a similar context, "[t]here is no logical con......
  • Schmitt v. State, No. 76317
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 14, 1991
    ...(quotation marks omitted). Confining our inquiry entirely to the four corners of the affidavit, as required by law, e.g., State v. Bond, 341 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see Sec. 933.18, Fla.Stat. (1989); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(h)(1) (1990), the next question is whether the factual allegation......
  • 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