JULITA MARIE MILETE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Julita Marie Milete appealed her conviction for marijuana possession, challenging the validity of the search warrant used to seize contraband from her house trailer. The court reversed her conviction, holding that the warrant was based solely on an unverified anonymous tip that did not meet the probable cause standard established in Illinois v. Gates.
No. The court held that an unverified anonymous tip, standing alone, does not provide probable cause for a search warrant under the Gates standard. The trial court erred in denying Milete's motion to suppress and in adjudicating her guilty based on the unlawfully seized evidence.
[1] Probable cause for a search warrant requires a totality of the circumstances analysis, considering an informant's veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge.
[2] An anonymous tip, standing alone, is insufficient to establish probable cause for a search warrant.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the state the duty of demonstrating probable cause under Illinois v. Gates”
Establishes that the state must demonstrate probable cause and that Gates is the controlling standard under Florida Constitution Article I, Section 12
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMilete was charged with possession of marijuana found in her house trailer. The search warrant was based on an affidavit that relied primarily on info…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Totality Of The Circumstances Test (Illinois V. Gates) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals from her adjudication of guilt for possession of marijuana. She entered a plea of nolo contendere specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress the contraband seized from her house trailer. The crux of the affidavit to support the application for a warrant came from an anonymous tipster regarding his participation in the placement of the bales of marijuana in the defendant’s trailer. The anonymous tipster relayed this information to a confidential informant whose reliability was credited by an affiant. Although there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the affiant or the reliability of the informant, there remains upon the state the duty of demonstrating probable cause under Illinois v. Gates, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). Gates is controlling here by virtue of article I, section 12, Florida Constitution.
In Gates, the United States Supreme Court stated that “an informant’s ‘veracity,’ ‘reliability’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ are all highly relevant in determining the value of his report.” However, the court continued, these elements “should be understood simply as closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the common-sense, practical question whether there is ‘probable cause’ .. . .” 103 S.Ct. at 2327-28. The Court held that there was probable cause because the anonymous tip contained details which would be difficult to obtain or predict and the police corroborated the veracity of this information. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, it was not unlikely that the anonymous informant also had reliable information about the alleged illegal activities. 103 S.Ct. at 2335.
The instant warrant was based on nothing more than the unverified allegation of an anonymous tipster. This did not rise to the probable cause standard enunciated in Gates. The Supreme Court clearly stated that “standing alone, the anonymous letter ... would not provide the basis for a magistrate’s determination that there was probable cause .... ” 103 S.Ct. at 2326. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress and thereafter adjudicating her guilty on the plea of nolo contendere.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is reversed with directions to discharge the defendant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ysidro Y. DeLaPAZ v. State, 453 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…vided the issuing magistrate with a “substantial basis” for concluding that there existed a fair probability that marijuana would be found at Brown’s home. Cf. State v. VanWinkle, 444 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th 1984) [9 FLW 167]. But see Milete v. State, 439 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Wallace v. State, 442 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of DeLaPaz’s motion to suppress.1 We have reviewed the other alleged errors argued in this appeal and find them meritless. Th…
-
Sheppard v. State, 521 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…confidential citizen, it contains no information regarding the reliability of the [*289] unknown informant, and, without such information, paragraph 13 is insufficient to provide the probable cause required to justify a search. See Milete v. State, 439 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Moreover, the tips provided by the anonymous person themselves lacked any indicia of reliability. No search was made of the informant in order to ascertain whether the substance he later described as cocaine was in fact on his pe…
-
State v. Gonzalez, 532 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Vasquez v. State, 491 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Milete v. State, 439 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Illinois v. Gates et ux., 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983)