State v. Compton
| Decision Date | 23 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 74--15,s. 74--15 |
| Citation | 301 So.2d 810 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William COMPTON, Appellee. STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robin FRANKLIN, Appellee. to 74--18. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph P. D'Alessandro, State's Atty., Louis S. St. Laurent, Chief Asst. State's Atty., and Xavier J. Fernandez, Asst. State's Atty., Fort Myers, for appellant.
Patrick E. Geraghty and Albert M. Frierson, Fort Myers, for appellees.
An agent of the Lee County Sheriff's Department appeared before County Judge David L. Orosz and presented an affidavit for a search warrant. The affidavit stated, Inter alia:
The affiant has received information from a trustworthy confidential informant, that said informant has been in the above described dwelling and has seen Cannabis sativa, commonly known as Marihuana (sic). Said informant has seen said Marihuana (sic) within the past ten days. The affiant has received information from said confidential informant in the past and the information so received has been proven true and correct, therefore said informant has proven to be reliable and trustworthy.
Judge Orosz ordered the warrant issued and the following day agents of the sheriff's department executed the warrant. As a result, the appellees were arrested for possession of dangerous drug paraphernalia, possession of a controlled substance, to wit: amphetamines, and possession with intent to sell a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana. Subsequently, both appellees were charged by informations with possession of a controlled substance.
The appellees moved to compel disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant and also moved to suppress the evidence obtained in the search. Circuit Judge William Lamar Rose granted the motions and these timely appeals followed.
Upon joint motion for consolidation filed here by counsel for the respective parties, the cases were consolidated for appeal purposes by order of this court.
The standards for affidavits in support of search warrants are set forth in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). The requirements of Aguilar, supra, and Spinelli, supra, were recognized as controlling in Florida in State v. Smith, Fla.1970, 233 So.2d 396. There can be no question but that probable cause is a mandatory prerequisite to the issuance of any warrant. 1
It is vigorously asserted by counsel for appellees that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was insufficient as not meeting the established standards in the case previously cited. We disagree. A reading of the said affidavit leads us to the conclusion that the test prescribed in Spinelli, supra, has been satisfied. The allegation, clearly recited in the affidavit, that the confidential informant is a trustworthy one is supported by the other allegations therein that affiant had received information in the past from this source which had proven to be reliable and trustworthy. Further the affidavit reveals that the informant had related to the affiant that he had been in the premises and had seen marijuana therein within ten days from the date the affidavit was executed.
As was said in State v. Lewis, Fla.App.2nd, 1969, 225 So.2d 170, 171:
. . . There is no doubt that a reasonable man, when confronted with the above factual allegations, would conclude that probable cause existed to support issuance of the search warrant.
Accordingly, we find that the trial judge erred in granting appellees' motion to suppress the evidence and find that sufficient facts were alleged in the affidavit for issuance of the search warrant to sustain the county judge's finding of probable cause.
The appellees moved for the entry of an order compelling the disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant. They based their request on the contention that '. . . (i)n order for Defendant to determine whether or not the Search Warrant was issued on probable cause it is necessary that Defendant's counsel be allowed to depose said confidential informant.' After hearing, the trial judge entered an order allowing the appellees to take the deposition of the confidential informant in the privacy of the court reporter's office, Lee County Courthouse, Ft. Myers.
In an effort to establish an exception, the appellees place their reliance on the law pronounced in Spataro v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1965, 179 So.2d 873. The case sub judice and the last cited case are opposite factually. In Spataro, supra, it is noted that the defendants, upon motion of the state, were tried separately and subsequently one of the defendants testified as a witness for the state. She testified that the marijuana did not belong to her and that she had not seen it prior to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montgomery v. State
... ... We find no merit in appellant's first contention in light of State v. Compton, 301 So.2d 810 (Fla.2nd DCA 1974), and need not address it further. While we find that there is some merit in appellant's second contention, we find that under existing case law the information was not stale and that the good-faith standard of Leon v. United States, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, ... ...
-
State v. Wolff
... ... Smith, 233 So.2d 396 (Fla.1970), as well as District Court holdings in State v. Katz, 295 So.2d 356 (Fla.App.4th 1974), and Paula v. State, 188 So.2d 388 (Fla.App.2d 1966). There is clear and direct conflict between the Third District's holding and the recent decision in State v. Compton, 301 So.2d 810 (Fla.App.2d 1974). 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 3(b)(3) ... We hold the restrictive construction by the Third District Court was neither intended by our legislature in adopting Section 933.18, Florida Statutes, nor ... ...
-
State v. Lasswell
... ... Moreover, the affiant's own investigation verified some of the information supplied by the informant. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). No one can doubt that the contents of the affidavit demonstrated probable cause. 1 See State v. Compton, 301 So.2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); State v. Lewis, 225 So.2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) ... The basis upon which the lower court quashed the search warrant was its belief that the pertinent assertions in the affidavit were "mere conclusory statements unsupported by basic factual data ... ...
-
Hunter v. State, 79-370
... ... But see, United States v. Burke, 517 F.2d 377 (2d Cir. 1975); Rowe v. State, 355 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Churney v. State, 348 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); State v. Compton, 301 So.2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) ... The order denying the motion to suppress is affirmed together with the ... ...