State v. Dominguez
| Decision Date | 24 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 78-1094,78-1095,s. 78-1094 |
| Citation | 367 So.2d 651 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jorge L. DOMINGUEZ, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Eula Tuttle Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Britt Whitaker, Tampa, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the state from orders suppressing the seizure of evidence pursuant to two separate search warrants.
On December 20, 1977, Circuit Judge John A. Gilbert issued a search warrant authorizing the search of appellee's apartment. The search warrant was executed and certain incriminating evidence was seized. However, the apartment appeared to have been vacated, so Detective Law sought a new search warrant for an apartment to which appellee had moved. The affidavit for the new search warrant contained the same statement of facts used to obtain the earlier search warrant plus a recitation of information learned by the detective from his search of the first apartment. The new search warrant was issued by Circuit Judge James A. Lenfestey on December 22, 1977. This search warrant was executed and further property was seized.
The appellee was later indicted for the murder of John Redmond, Jr. and William Steven Weissman and also charged with the possession of marijuana. The appellee moved to suppress the evidence obtained through both searches. It was agreed that if the first search was deemed invalid the second search would also have to fall. The court ruled that the affidavit in support of the first search warrant was legally insufficient, and the court entered orders suppressing the evidence seized as a result of both searches. As a basis for its conclusion, the court noted "that the affidavit upon which the first search warrant was issued is woefully inadequate in that the affiant does not even name the persons from whom he received the information which is set forth in the chronology of events, so the court has no way of knowing who furnished that information, whether or not that person had an opportunity to observe what is set forth there in that chronology of events or whether or not it was hearsay or hearsay twice or three times removed."
In Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, 729 (1964), the United States Supreme Court set forth the requirements of an affidavit for a search warrant based upon hearsay evidence.
Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, 78 A.L.R.2d 233, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, see Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887, was "credible" or his information "reliable. . . . "
However, that same court warned against the supertechnical interpretation of such affidavits when, in United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 746, 13 L.Ed.2d 684, 689 (1965), it said:
If the teachings of the Court's cases are to be followed and the constitutional policy served, affidavits for search warrants, such as the one involved here, must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a commonsense and realistic fashion. They are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Technical requirements of elaborate specificity once exacted under common law pleadings have no proper place in this area. A grudging or negative attitude by reviewing courts toward warrants will tend to discourage police officers from submitting their evidence to a judicial officer before acting.
In this appeal the state argues that even though the affidavits did not specifically state who supplied Detective Law with what facts, one can determine this information from a commonsense reading of the statements within the affidavit. Keeping in mind the dictates of Ventresca, we think it reasonable to make the following conclusions from the quoted portions of the affidavit:
Affiant is a member of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department and has been so employed since March of 1970. The Affiant is presently assigned to the Criminal Investigation Division as a detective and is currently assigned to the Crimes Against Persons Bureau, charged with investigations of Murder.
Your Affiant has personally participated in the investigation of the murder of John B. Redmond, Jr., since the date his body was recovered from a shallow grave on December 17, 1977. The information related below was obtained by your Affiant through interviews of persons connected with this investigation.
The following is a chronology of events as pieced together through writer's investigation. The chronology will be followed by a concluding paragraph.
This preface simply reflects that Detective Law obtained the facts thereafter stated through personal interviews conducted during his investigation of the Redmond murder.
John Redmond, Jr., drives to the Windjammer Apartment, the residence of Francis David Brew AKA Sunshine. While there Redmond told Francis that he wanted $5,000.00 back that he had given him about a week prior because he needed it for another deal. The money was given back in the form of 50 one hundred dollar bills.
Since Redmond is dead, the logical conclusion to be drawn from this paragraph is that Brew related the details of a transaction between himself and Redmond.
William Steven Weissman arrived in Tampa from Melbourn (sic) Florida. He had approximately $6,000.00 in cash on his person. Weissman was picked up from the airport by Karen Meredith who observed him to be very nervous. Karen took him to Redmond's residence which is located at 7228 Potts Rd., Riverview, Florida. During that afternoon Jorge Dominguez and a person known as "Cheeto" arrive. At approximately 7:00 p. m., David Brew arrives and overhears the four talking about a cocaine deal. Jorge got up several times and telephoned an unknown person asking if the "man" had come yet.
Karen Meredith obviously furnished the information concerning Weissman's arrival at Redmond's residence with the $6,000. Brew overheard the discussion about the cocaine deal. It appears with somewhat less certainty that Brew was the source of the statement that appellee made telephone calls asking if the "man" had come yet. In any event, this information was not essential to the showing of probable cause.
No indication of Redmond or Weissman leaving the Potts Road address.
No activity until the afternoon hours when Redmond and Weissman left the house and went target practicing with a 38 special revolver and a 9MM automatic.
The source of this information is not indicated, but the information is not particularly pertinent to probable cause.
Approximately 1500 hours Redmond and Weissman arrive at the residence of Francis Brew. They have a 6 pack of beer and said they were in the area killing some time. They stayed for about one hour and left not saying where they were going. (Brew described the manner in which Redmond was dressed and was the same as he was when his body was discovered.) At approximately 12:00 midnight John Redmond's vehicle is discovered in the airport parking lot. (Weissman's body in the trunk). The windshield wipers were on indicating that the vehicle was driven to the airport sometime after 20:05 hours when it started raining. (Weissman's body was wrapped in a green thermal banket (sic) and a white "Grant" sheet, shot twice, wallet missing).
The arrival of Weissman and Redmond at the Brew residence is specifically attributed to Brew. The finding of Redmond's vehicle was a fact obviously known by the police.
Karen calls Jorge Dominguez inquiring about Redmond's absence. Dominguez siad (sic) that he had seen Redmond Monday the 5th and Redmond told him that he was leaving town. (Redmond nor Weissman took any personal items...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newberry v. State
...which are supported by the record and are, therefore, affirmed. Brown v. State, 380 So.2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Dominguez, 367 So.2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Johnson v. State, 157 Fla. 685, 27 So.2d 276 Finally, with respect to the search and seizure issue, appellant challenges t......
-
State v. Robinson
...binding on this court if it is supported by substantial competent evidence. Earman v. State, 265 So.2d 695 (Fla.1972); State v. Dominguez, 367 So.2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 457 (Fla.1979). In this case, the trial court's decision has the appropriate evidentiary support. A......
-
State v. Hills, 82-1438
...trial court. His ruling on this issue should be affirmed if it is supported by competent and substantial evidence. State v. Dominguez, 367 So.2d 651, 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 457 (Fla.1979). However, the failure to give due notice should not result in the suppression ......
-
Dominguez v. State, 80-2157
...on March 21, 1980, for two counts of second-degree murder. We affirm the conviction but remand for correction of the sentence. 367 So.2d 651 (Fla.App.). After reviewing each point raised by appellant, we find only one point which has merit. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in r......