Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

459 So. 2d 321

Docket No. 84-189.

State v. Marrow

The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Joseph Nunze MARROW, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 12, 1984.

Rehearing Denied July 13, 1984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1984-06-12

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1995

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(1) ... the affiant clearly implied that the critical conversation discussed in the affidavit was between the confidential informant and him, even though the affiant did not expressly state that he "personally" spoke to or interviewed the informant, see e.g., Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); United States v. Davis, 714 F.2d 896 (9th Cir.1983); Debord v. State, 422 So.2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), [therefore] the affiant's statement is at least recklessly false; (2) The fact that probable cause existed or could have been readily shown by a truthful affidavit stating that the affiant's information came from a fellow officer does not change the result, since it is the truth of the affiant's statement, not the truth of the confidential informant's statement that is material to the magistrate's decision to issue the search warrant, United States v. Davis, 714 F.2d 896 ; and (3) since after the required excision of the false information concerning the confidential informant see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 172 , 98 S.Ct. at 2684 , there are not sufficient facts in the affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, the warrant is thus invalid, and suppression of the evidence seized thereunder was properly granted.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 523 So. 2d 744 - State v. Beney, 555 So. 2d 342 - Villemez v. State

“did not expressly state that he 'personally' spoke to or interviewed the informant.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 523 So. 2d 744 - State v. Beney, 555 So. 2d 342 - Villemez v. State

Relies on Franks v. Delaware · United States v. Davis · 422 So. 2d 881 - Debord v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-06-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*322 Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Renee E. Ruska, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

¶2Mark King Leban, Goodhart, Rosner & Green, Miami, for appellee.

¶3Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

¶4DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

¶5At a hearing conducted on the defendant's challenge to the veracity of a sworn statement used by the police to procure a search warrant, it was revealed without dispute that notwithstanding the affiant's sworn statement in the affidavit for the search warrant that "your affiant received information from a reliable confidential informant," in fact, the affiant had never communicated with the alleged confidential informant, but had spoken only to a fellow police officer, who told the affiant about the reliability of the confidential informant and the information which the informant gave.

¶6We affirm the trial court's order suppressing the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant upon a holding that (1) where, as here, the affiant clearly implied that the critical conversation discussed in the affidavit was between the confidential informant and him, even though the affiant did not expressly state that he "personally" spoke to or interviewed the informant, see, e.g., Franks v. Delaware,438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); United States v. Davis,714 F.2d 896 (9th Cir.1983); Debord v. State,422 So.2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the affiant's statement is at least recklessly false; (2) the fact that probable cause existed and could have been readily shown by a truthful affidavit stating that the affiant's information came from a fellow officer does not change the result, since it is the truth of the affiant's statement, not the truth of the confidential informant's statement, that is material to the magistrate's decision to issue the search warrant, United States v. Davis,714 F.2d 896; and (3) since after the required excision of the false information concerning the confidential informant, see Franks v. Delaware,438 U.S. at 172, 98 S.Ct. at 2684, there are not sufficient facts in the affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, the warrant is thus invalid, and suppression of the evidence seized thereunder was properly granted.

¶7Affirmed.

/459/so2d/321 · .json · Public domain