THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
REYNALDO FUENTES AND ROLANDO LOPEZ, APPELLEES
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 court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the information because the State's failure to produce the confidential informant, while negligent, did not warrant the extreme sanction of dismissal.
The State was ordered to produce a confidential informant who could not be located. The trial court dismissed the information based on this failure. T…
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 Dismissal Of Information cases and more on FLexlaw
[*97] PER CURIAM.
On defendants’ motion, the State was ordered to produce its confidential informant. The State failed to do so because it was unable to locate the informant. After reviewing the record and depositions of the investigating officers, the trial court dismissed the information under authority of Aldazabal v. State, 471 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). We reverse.
In the present case the confidential informant was a witness. While he was present during the negotiations, he was not an active participant and did not understand much of the negotiations, as he was a non-Spanish speaker and the negotiations were conducted directly by the defendants with the undercover officers in Spanish. The informant was not present at the actual sale transaction at which the arrests occurred. The case is therefore unlike Aldazabal v. State, in which the confidential informant was the only actual participant in two of the narcotics sales. 471 So. 2d at 640.
Viewing the case on a cold record, as did the trial court, it appears that the State’s conduct is more accurately described as negligence, see State v. Saldarriaga, 486 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rather than deliberaté ignorance. See State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342, 343-44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Unlike the situation in Jones, the police officers in the present case successfully stayed in touch with the undercover informant for several weeks after the arrest. The State’s efforts to locate the confidential informant, while belated, were considerably greater in scope than those described in Saldarriaga. See 486 So. 2d at 684. On the present record we do not think that the extreme sanction of dismissal was warranted.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Simmons, 944 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…of the individual in question. Simmons relies upon Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623,1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), Miller v. State, 729 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), McCray v. State, 730 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), State v. Fuentes, 563 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), in support of his proposition that disclosure of the informant is mandated, and that law enforcement’s failure to obtain t…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Aldazabal v. State, 471 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- State v. Maritsa Saldarriaga, 486 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)