DELVA MILBIN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Appellant was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm after a detective stopped and searched him based on information provided by a crime victim. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim's face-to-face report, combined with corroborating circumstances, provided sufficient reliability to justify the investigatory stop without requiring the stricter standard applied to anonymous tips.
The court held that the information provided by the victim was sufficiently reliable based on surrounding circumstances and the nature of the tip itself to create founded suspicion for an investigatory stop. Because the victim remained on scene, was a citizen informant motivated by furthering justice, and provided face-to-face communication with verifiable details, the information did not qualify as an anonymous tip requiring additional corroboration.
[1] A face-to-face tip from an unidentified witness who remains on the scene to identify the suspect is sufficiently reliable to establish a founded suspicion for an investig…
[2] Information provided by a witness whose identity is readily discoverable is not classified as an anonymous tip.
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“Officers may stop and frisk a person on a tip deemed sufficiently reliable, based on either 'the surrounding circumstances or the nature of the information given in the tip itself.'”
Establishes the test for determining whether a stop based on a tip is justified
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA detective received information from an alleged assault victim describing the perpetrator and the location of the incident. The victim did not identi…
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 Citizen Informant cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm, but argues that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress physical evidence where the state did not have a founded suspicion to stop the appellant. We affirm;
Appellant was stopped and searched by a detective acting on information given to him by the victim of an alleged assault with a firearm. The information from this witness consisted of a physical description of the alleged perpetrator and the location where the incident took place. The witness did not identify himself nor was the witness known to the detective.
The detective went to the location described by the witness and found appellant wearing clothing consistent with the witness’s description. The detective suspected appellant was the individual who allegedly committed the assault on the witness earlier in the evening, and for his safety proceeded with a pat down search of appellant, locating a firearm concealed in appellant’s pocket.
Appellant argues that the information given to the detective was by an individual not known to him and should have been classified as an anonymous tip for which additional independent corroboration was needed to justify a stop of appellant. Aguilar v. State, 700 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and Woodson v. State, 747 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In Aguilar we said:
Officers may stop and frisk a person on a tip deemed sufficiently reliable, based on either “the surrounding circumstances or the nature of the information given in the tip itself.”
700 So. 2d at 59 (quoting Hetland, v. State, 387 So. 2d 963, 963 (Fla.1980)).
We find that the information given to the detective in person by this un identified witness was sufficiently reliable, based on the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the tip itself, to create a founded suspicion by the detective to conduct an investigatory stop of. appellant. The record shows that the witness provided the detective with a physical description of the perpetrator that closely matched that of appellant. The detective also found appellant in the same location described by the witness. The witness provided the detective with information “face to face,” then remained on the scene to identify the appellant. A witness who provides information to a police officer through “face to face” communication is deemed to be sufficiently reliable. See Carattini v. State, 774 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
This court also stated in Aguilar that, if a witness’s identity is readily discoverable, then the information given to the police does not fall into the category of an anonymous tip. 700 So. 2d at 59 (citing State v. Evans, 692 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). In this case the witness’s identity was readily discoverable. The witness’s continued presence afforded the detective ample opportunity to obtain his identification, an aspect which distinguishes this case from Woodson.
Finally, this court in Aguilar stated that if an unidentified witness offers information to a law enforcement officer as a citizen informant, then the information given to the detective is at the high end of the reliability scale. A citizen informant is normally motivated by the desire to further justice, not by pecuniary gain. As such, a citizen-informant is more reliable than the informant who may be involved with the criminals on which he informs. 700 So. 2d at 59 (citing Evans, 692 So. 2d 216). The witness in this case qualifies as a citizen informant. The record shows that the witness found himself to be a victim of criminal conduct and promptly reported the incident to a law enforcement officer. Accordingly, we affirm.
GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baptiste v. State, 995 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2008)…aw enforcement approached Castella); Manning v. State, 957 So. 2d 111, 112-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (burglary victim informed police that a person from the neighborhood told him that it was Manning before seizure of Manning occurred); Milbin v. State, 792 So. 2d 1272, 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (victim of assault with a firearm provided police with a physical description of the assailant and the location where incident occurred before police seized Milbin); Carattini v. State, 774 So. 2d 927, 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 200…
-
Castella v. State, 959 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Furthermore, “[a] witness who provides information to a police officer through ‘face to face’ communication is deemed to be sufficiently reliable,” so as to generally be classified as a citizen informant. See Milbin v. State, 792 So. 2d 1272, 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Turning to the cases cited by the parties, one is relied on heavily by the State (and the trial court) and another is relied on heavily by Castella. The first case, which was cited by the State (and the trial court), is C…
-
Baptiste v. State, 959 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…astella v. State, 2007 WL 1426880 (Fla. 4th DCA Case no. 4D06-2495, opinion filed, May 16, 2007)[32 Fla. L. Weekly D1285]; Manning v. State, 957 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Carattini v. State, 774 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Milbin v. State, 792 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also United States v. Heard, 367 F. 3d 1275 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 913, 125 S.Ct. 235, 160 L.Ed.2d 194 (2004); United States v. Valentine, 232 F. 3d 350 (3d Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1014, 121 S.Ct.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hetland v. State, 387 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1980)
- D & J Indus., Inc. v. ST. Columba Episcopal Church, 692 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- State v. Evans, 692 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Feliz Aguilar v. State, 700 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Carattini v. State, 774 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Woodson v. State, 747 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)