State v. Brown, 88-1963
| Decision Date | 07 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1963,88-1963 |
| Citation | 539 So.2d 532,14 Fla. L. Weekly 626 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 626 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Donell BROWN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Whitelock & Moldof and Hilliard Moldof, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, COPE and LEVY, JJ.
The defendant, Donell Brown, was charged by information with possession and intent to sell or purchase cocaine. The trial court granted his motion to suppress physical evidence derived from a search of his apartment based on its finding that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was insufficient. We disagree and reverse.
The affidavit in support of the search warrant was signed by two undercover officers who had been involved in an ongoing narcotics investigation. In the affidavit, which was prepared four days after the events described therein, the officers stated that they met with a woman named "Shula" who had smoked crack cocaine and told the officers that she could make a phone call to obtain more cocaine "rocks." The affidavit further recited that Shula, by then an unknowing informer, made the phone call and told the officers she would accompany them to a nearby location to purchase more "rocks." Shula directed the officers to drive her to an apartment and the officers gave her $20.00 to make the purchase. They observed Shula walk to the apartment and saw a man answer the door. The officers watched as Shula handed the man the $20.00 in exchange for "rock" cocaine. Shula then walked directly back to the waiting officers' vehicle, displayed the "rock," and stated that the man supplies the finest quality and quantity of crack cocaine in the area.
The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress because it found that the search warrant was insufficient in that it lacked allegations regarding Shula's reliability, did not contain any allegations of continuing criminal acts taking place within the apartment, and did not contain any allegations that the person who sold the drugs from the apartment actually lived in the apartment and thus could be found there at a future time.
We reject the defendant's claim that the information providing probable cause was stale by the time the search was made. In the recent case of Sotolongo v. State, 530 So.2d 514, 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), the Second District held that a delay of eleven to fourteen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montgomery v. State
...530 So.2d 514, 515 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1988) (11 to 14 days); State v. Enstice, 573 So.2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (13 days); State v. Brown, 539 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989) (4 In House v. State, 323 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 463 (Fla.1976), this court upheld issuanc......
-
Reyes v. State, 87-1790
...2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 548 (1983) (citation omitted). The facts presented by this case are similar to those in State v. Brown, 539 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), except that in the Brown case the purchase took place in the doorway of the defendant's residence, so that the undercover off......