STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MAJID MARK ABIRI, 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.
The State appeals a trial court order suppressing evidence of marijuana seized from Abiri's vehicle following a warrantless search. The appellate court reverses, holding that probable cause was not established until the informant's tip was corroborated by the officer's observations at the scene, at which point exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search.
The court held that probable cause was not established until the informant's tip was corroborated by the detective's independent observations of Abiri at the prearranged location and time. Once probable cause was established through this corroboration, exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless search under the automobile exception, making the search valid.
[1] Probable cause for a warrantless search of a vehicle is established when an informant's tip is corroborated by independent police work, particularly when the suspect appe…
[2] The specificity of information provided by a confidential informant, standing alone, is insufficient to establish probable cause without validation through independent po…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Until Abiri appeared at the scene confirming the informant's tip, the reliability of the confidential informant had not been established since he or she had only provided information for eleven days, none of which was corroborated.”
Establishes that probable cause was not established based on the informant's tip alone but required corroboration by independent police observations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDetective Mercurio received information from an untested confidential informant that Abiri was a narcotics dealer who could supply marijuana. The 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 (For Probable Cause) cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
The state appeals an order of the trial court granting Abiri’s motion to suppress evidence * seized from his vehicle. We reverse.
Detective Mercurio of the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office obtained the information leading to this seizure from an untested confidential informant eleven days prior to the search. The informant advised Mercu-rio that Abiri was a known narcotics dealer and could supply several pounds of marijuana. Mercurio directed the informant to arrange for Abiri to deliver fifteen pounds of marijuana to a designated location. The informant provided Mercurio with Abiri’s full name, a description of Abiri, the year and description of Abiri’s car, including the color and the type of wheels. The informant also provided the exact time and the location where Abiri was to deliver the marijuana.
Abiri appeared at the designated location at the predetermined time driving a car resembling that previously described by the informant. The physical description of Abiri also matched that given by the informant. The informant was present with Mercurio at the scene and identified Abiri. Abiri was then detained and arrested. The contested evidence was seized from Abiri’s vehicle. The trial judge in granting the motion to suppress the seized evidence observed that there was probable cause for the search, but since probable cause was present for at least twenty-one hours before the search, the warrantless search of the car, without exigent circumstances, required suppression. We disagree.
In Baxter v. State, 390 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), the first district recognized the necessity of verification of an informant’s tip in establishing probable cause. See also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), noting that under the totality of the circumstances, corroboration of an informant’s tip by independent police work is of significant value in determining probable cause. Id. at 241, 103 S.Ct. at 2333. The warrantless search of an automobile based on information received by a confidential informant was also upheld in United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982).
In Ross, the informant described an individual who was selling drugs from a described vehicle at a specific location. Because probable cause was established when the officers observed the individual, thus corroborating the tip, the search was valid under the automobile exception enunciated in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925).
Until Abiri appeared at the scene confirming the informant’s tip, the reliability of the confidential informant had not been established since he or she had only provided information for eleven days, none of which was corroborated. The specificity of the information furnished, by itself, is insufficient to establish probable cause until validated by the officer’s observations. State v. Augustyn, 490 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (Lehan, J., dissenting).
Therefore, probable cause did not arise in the present case until the information supplied to Detective Mercurio was verified by his observation of Abiri at the prearranged place and time. At that point, exigent circumstances clearly existed to support a warrantless search of Abiri’s car. See Raffield v. State, 351 So. 2d 945 (1977); Engle v. State, 391 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (where probable cause exists to search and exigent circumstances are present, this sib uation creates an exception to the necessity of obtaining a search warrant before a search).
We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s order of suppression and remand for further proceedings.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur. *
The evidence which was seized and ordered suppressed consisted of fifteen pounds of marijuana, cannabis smoking pipes, a cigarette roller, cigarette rolling papers, and a steel bar.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rogers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…he first time he had provided such information for the police to act upon. “The specificity of the informa [*1151] tion furnished, by itself, is insufficient to establish probable cause until validated by the officer’s observations.” State v. Abiri, 539 So. 2d 492 (Fla.2d DCA 1989). See also, United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); State v. Flowers, 566 So. 2d 50 (Fla.2d DCA 1990); Edwards v. State, 547 So. 2d 183 (Fla.2d DCA 1989). Here, the police had independently corrob…
-
State v. Edwards, 547 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…tes, 103 S.Ct. at 2332. In Gates the supreme court held [*185] that the police had probable cause to search once they verified the details contained in an anonymous letter which provided information regarding future conduct. See also State v. Abiri, 539 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (probable cause existed once officer verified detailed information provided by untested informant). This case is similar to the facts of Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). In Draper an info…
-
Trotman v. State, 581 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…cted a future set of events which would culminate in a drug transaction. The police corroborated most of the future events before they made their stop. Thus, Edwards involves future behavior. This ease does not. Edwards is similar to State v. Abiri, 539 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), in which we expressly stated that an anonymous tip did not provide probable cause until a crucial prediction was validated by the officer’s observation of the event. In closing, without expanding this dissent with a detailed des…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925)
- Illinois v. Gates et ux., 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- Leveral Raffield v. State, 351 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1977)
- Engle v. State, 391 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Pryor v. State, 390 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Augustyn, 490 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)