State v. Wolff
| Decision Date | 26 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 45447,45447 |
| Citation | 310 So.2d 729 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert Miller WOLFF, Jr., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Robert S. Appleton of Appleton & Ernst, P.A., Marathon, for respondent.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the Third District Court of Appeal. That court construed Section 933.18, Florida Statutes, to require that 'the creditable witness must himself . . . be the one who knows the facts' in an affidavit supporting a search warrant for a private dwelling. Wolff v. State, 291 So.2d 15, 17 (Fla.App.3d 1974). This construction effectively prohibits the use of hearsay evidence, including information from a reliable informant, to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant of a dwelling. Conflict is alleged with our holding in State v. 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 constitutionally required by this Court or by the United States Supreme Court, and must therefore be reversed.
The following are the circumstances material to the issuance of the search warrant in this cause. A City of Miami police officer went to Monroe County and made an affidavit before an appropriate judicial officer. The affidavit contained the following allegations to support the search of a dwelling in Monroe County:
"That on December 8, 1972, in the afternoon hours your affiant purchased five bags of heroin for one hundred dollars in the living room of number seven Man-O-War road, Marathon, Monroe County Florida, from a white male who was at the time a guest of Doctor Robert M. Wolff Jr.
'That on December 19, 1972 a confidential informant of your affiant who has proven himself to be reliable on at least seven previous occasions told your affiant that in the evening hours of December 18, 1972 while the confidential inforamount (sic) was visiting the residence of Doctor Robert M. Wolff Jr. at number seven, Man-O-War road, Marathon, Monroe County Florida, the informant observed Doctor Robert M. Wolff Jr., and approximately (sic) five guests smoking marijuana and also observed approxamatly (sic) two ounces of marijuana in the living room at that time.
"That on December 19, 1972 the same confidential informant also stated to your affiant that the informant had a conversation in the evening hours of December 19, 1972 with Doctor Robert M. Wolff Jr., at number seven, Man-O-War road, Marathon, Monroe County Florida, in which Doctor Robert M. Wolff Jr. stated to the informant that he needed some more cocaine but that he still had some cocaine in his possession." 291 So.2d at 16.
In summary, the affidavit reflects that (1) the affiant had personal knowledge concerning the purchase of five bags of heroin from a guest of the defendant in the dwelling which was the subject of the search; and (2) an informant whose proven reliability had been established on seven previous occasions had (a) observed the defendant smoking marijuana on a specific date in the subject dwelling and had reported this fact to the affiant; and (b) been told by the defendant that he, the defendant, had cocaine in his possession. A search warrant was issued, and a search of the premises uncovered various drugs and drug paraphernalia. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence before the trial court. This motion was denied, and the defendant was thereafter tried and found guilty by a jury on five drug offense counts.
The conditions under which a search warrant may be issued for a private dwelling are set forth in Section 933.18, Florida Statutes, which provides:
'When warrant may be issued for search of private dwelling.--No search warrant shall issue under this chapter or under any other law of this state to search any private dwelling occupied as such unless:
'(1) It is being used for the unlawful sale, possession, or manufacture of intoxicating liquor;
'(2) Stolen or embezzled property is contained therein;
'(3) It is being used to carry on gambling;
'(4) It is being used to perpetrate frauds and swindles;
'(5) The law relating to narcotics or drug abuse is being violated therein;
'(6) A weapon, instrumentality, or means by which a felony has been committed is contained therein; or
'(7) Unless it is in part used for some business purpose such as a store, shop, saloon, restaurant, hotel or boarding or lodging house.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held the affidavit insufficient as a matter of law to support the search of a private dwelling. The court stated:
'. . . (I)n the case of a private dwelling the affidavit must be made by the 'creditable witness that he has reason . . .', and that the affidavit of the witness 'shall set forth the facts'.'
The court contrasted that provision with the statutory section applicable to all search warrant affidavits, specifically Section 933.06, Florida Statutes, and concluded:
'Therefore, the only way to give effect to both statutes is to hold that section 933.18 applying to private dwellings requires the stricter rule that the creditable witness Must himself make the affidavit and must be the one who knows the facts. . . .' (Emphasis supplied) 291 So.2d at 17.
It is our opinion that the District Court emphasized the words 'creditable witness' out of context. These words must be construed together with the remaining provisions of the statute. The critical words of Section 933.18, Florida Statutes, provide that a search warrant may be issued only:
'. . . (O)n sworn proof by affidavit of some Creditable witness that He has reason to believe that one of said conditions exists, which affidavit shall set forth the facts on which Such reason for belief is based.' (Emphasis supplied)
The statute requires that the witness have 'reason to believe' and that the affidavit 'set forth the facts on which such reason for belief is based.' The statute does not require the creditable witness to 'have knowledge' or 'know that the conditions exist.' If it did, then the construction requiring direct knowledge of the facts would be appropriate. The phrase 'has reason to believe' clearly authorizes the use of reliable, hearsay information as part of the facts sufficient to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant for a dwelling. This holding is not in any way contrary to Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217 (1932). Cooper was concerned with the lack of facts in the affidavit, particularly that the assertions were only conclusions. We adhere to our holding in Cooper, which conforms to the United States Supreme Court's subsequent holdings in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1958); and Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159 (1933), that specific facts must be set forth to justify a finding of probable cause to issue a search warrant, but that holding does not mean that those facts cannot be based on hearsay information. When we say specific facts, we mean the time, the place, and the occurrence.
The creditability of a witness is a factual determination to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...This Court has previously held that an affidavit for a search warrant may be based on hearsay information. State v. Wolff, 310 So.2d 729 (Fla.1975) (citing Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.......
-
Pagan v. State
...(Fla.1999): Hearsay information provided by a confidential informant can be sufficient to support a search warrant, see State v. Wolff, 310 So.2d 729, 733 (Fla.1975), provided the affidavit satisfies the Gates test. See State v. Butler, 655 So.2d 1123, 1126-30 (Fla.1995). "Veracity" and "ba......
-
State v. Peterson
...S.Ct. 2317. Hearsay information provided by a confidential informant can be sufficient to support a search warrant, see State v. Wolff, 310 So.2d 729, 733 (Fla.1975), provided the affidavit satisfies the Gates test. See State v. Butler, 655 So.2d 1123, 1126-30 (Fla.1995). "Veracity" and "ba......
-
State v. Rand
...of hearsay evidence in suppression hearing and noting that hearsay can be sufficient to establish probable cause) (citing State v. Wolff , 310 So.2d 729 (Fla. 1975) ).In addition, probable cause is evaluated at the moment of arrest—the clock stops, time freezes, and nothing learned or occur......