State v. Hernandez, s. 88-03135

Decision Date12 July 1989
Docket NumberNos. 88-03135,89-00796,s. 88-03135
Citation14 Fla. L. Weekly 1680,546 So.2d 761
Parties14 Fla. L. Weekly 1680 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. David C. HERNANDEZ and Carol S. Getreu, Respondents.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for petitioner.

Britt Whitaker, Tampa, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The state timely petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court's order granting the defendants' motion for disclosure of the confidential informant. We agree that the circuit court's order departs from the essential requirements of law, grant the petition, and quash the order.

Following the execution of a search warrant, the defendants were charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of cannabis. Defendant Hernandez was also charged with possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The search warrant was based upon an affidavit which contained information provided by a confidential informant.

The defendants filed a motion for disclosure of the confidential informant alleging the following:

1. The confidential informant was the sole source of the probable cause for the search warrant which was the basis for the defendants' arrest;

2. The confidential informant was an eyewitness and a participant to the alleged offense; and

3. It was necessary to depose the confidential informant to "determine his or her potentiality as a defense witness."

The state objected to the motion on the ground that the motion was totally inadequate. The defense argued that the facts showed that there was only one witness to the case, the confidential informant. The defense further argued that, on its face, the search warrant was ambiguous. The state rebutted stating that the defendants were not charged with anything that the confidential informant observed and that the confidential informant was not even a witness. The circuit court judge granted the defendants' motion for disclosure.

Following the circuit judge's ruling, but prior to rendition of the order, the state made attempts to comply with the ruling. The defendants now argue that those actions waive the state's right to seek review of the order. We reject their argument.

Disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant who merely furnished the probable cause for a search or arrest is not required. State v. White, 418 So.2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(c)(2), provides as follows:

(2) Informants. Disclosure of a confidential informant shall not be required unless...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Joshua v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 2016
    ...a preliminary showing of the colorability of the defense prior to disclosure.’ " Thomas, 28 So.3d at 244 (quoting State v. Hernandez, 546 So.2d 761, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) ). See also State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d 864, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Thus, the defendant must assert a legally recognize......
  • State v. Burgos
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 27, 2008
    ...defense, "[t]he defendant must make a preliminary showing of the colorability of the defense prior to disclosure." State v. Hernandez, 546 So.2d 761, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); see Harris v. State, 939 So.2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), review dismissed, 946 So.2d 1070 (Fla.2006). The defendant mu......
  • Thomas v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 3, 2010
    ...defense, "[t]he defendant must make a preliminary showing of the colorability of the defense prior to disclosure." State v. Hernandez, 546 So.2d 761, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); see Harris v. State, 939 So.2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), review dismissed, 946 So.2d 1070 (Fla.2006). The defendant mu......
  • State v. Harklerode
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 4, 1990
    ...v. State, supra (one factor to be weighed in determining disclosure is whether informant merely supplied lead); State v. Hernandez, 546 So.2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (disclosure of confidential informant who merely furnished probable cause for search or arrest not required); State v. Acosta,......
  • 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