State v. Middleton, W-9
| Decision Date | 22 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. W-9,W-9 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Ronald MIDDLETON, Appellee. |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Joseph S. Farley, Jr., of Mahon, Farley & Vickers, Jacksonville, for appellee.
We here review by Interlocutory Appeal an order of the trial judge granting a motion to suppress certain evidence.
A warrant was issued authorizing the search of a certain residence in Jacksonville, which warrant was executed on February 7, 1974 resulting in the seizure at said residence of heroin. The warrant was based upon an affidavit signed by a Jacksonville detective in which affidavit the detective stated that he had received information from a confidential informer that the informer had personally observed heroin in the subject residence during the period of January 25, 1974 through February 7, 1974, during which period the informer had been at the residence on two different occasions and on each occasion had purchased heroin. The affidavit further recited that the detective believed that the information given him by the informer was true and correct and that the informer was familiar with heroin and had identified heroin in the detective's presence; and further that the informer was a reputable member of the community, had demonstrated an interest in good law enforcement, was gainfully employed and had received training in the identification of drugs.
The sole point for our consideration is the sufficiency of the affidavit. The defendant below, appellee here, convinced the trial judge that in order for an affidavit to be a sufficient basis for the issuance of a warrant to search a residence the affiant must recite some circumstances of his own personal knowledge supportive of the issuance of the warrant other than information received from a confidential informer. In so holding the trial judge relied upon a decision of our sister court of the Third District, Wolff v. State, Fla.App.3rd 1974, 291 So.2d 15.
In Treverrow v. State, Fla.App.1st 1966, 184 So.2d 473, this Court stated:
'Appellant insists that the search warrant was not properly issued since it was based solely upon hearsay evidence, or stated another way, that some circumstances other than information received from a confidential informer are necessary to support an affidavit for a search warrant. * * *' (184 So.2d at pages 473 and 474)
Responding to the contention above quoted, Chief Judge Rawls, writing for the Court, carefully considered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...Reliability may be established by a recital of facts showing why the affiant considers the informant reliable. See State v. Middleton, 302 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1 DCA 1974), and State v. Niles, 307 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4 DCA 1975). Reliability may be established by detailed information contained in th......
-
Johnson v. State
...84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); State v. Middleton, 302 So.2d 144 (Fla.1st DCA 1974). It is equally well recognized that the use of hearsay statements to support search warrants is subject to the standards o......
-
State v. Crisp, 74--1719
...based. Shall we follow Wolff v. State, 291 So.2d 15 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974), as did the trial court, or shall we follow State v. Middleton, 302 So.2d 144 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1974), or shall we choose yet some other route? We choose the precedent of Middleton as representing the correct and more pref......
-
State v. Niles
...case in State v. Crisp, 307 So.2d 454, opinion filed February 7, 1975, as did the First District Court of Appeal in State v. Middleton, Fla.App.1974, 302 So.2d 144. Unfortunately, neither of said decisions was available to the trial judge when he entered the order which is the subject of th......