STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ALVOID KENNON, 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 appealed a trial court order suppressing evidence from a drug search. The appellate court reversed, finding that the search warrant affidavit adequately established the nexus between the residence and criminal activity where a confidential informant identified the location as a drug source and officers observed the defendant exiting the house to complete a drug sale.
The appellate court held that the affidavit properly alleged both required elements. The nexus element was satisfied because the confidential informant specifically identified the residence as the location for drug purchases, Kennon exited the house to make the sale, and immediately re-entered after the transaction.
[1] A trial court's factual findings in a motion to suppress hearing must be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[2] A trial court's application of the law to the facts in a motion to suppress hearing is reviewed de novo.
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“An affidavit in a warrant application must allege both "that a particular person has committed a crime — the commission element, and ... that evidence relevant to the probable criminality is likely located at the place to be searched — the nexus element."”
Establishes the two-part legal standard required for a valid search warrant affidavit
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA confidential informant informed law enforcement that drugs could be purchased at 113 Fifth Avenue East in Bradenton. Officers observed the defendant…
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 Standard Of Review For Suppression Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*376] DAVIS, Judge.
The State challenges the trial court order granting Alvoid Kennon’s motion to suppress the physical evidence gathered in connection with drug possession charges against Kennon. We reverse.
When reviewing a motion to suppress, the trial court’s factual findings must be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence, Caso v. State, 524 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1988), while the trial court’s application of the law to those facts is reviewed de novo, Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).
In granting the motion to suppress here, the trial court accepted the facts as laid out in the application for search warrant. According to the application, the confidential informant (Cl) informed law enforcement that he could purchase drugs at 113 Fifth Avenue East in Bradenton. As officers watched the Cl approach that residence, Kennon exited the house, handed a baggie of cocaine to the Cl, and walked back inside the house.
An affidavit in a warrant application must allege both “that a particular person has committed a crime — the commission element, and ... that evidence relevant to the probable criminality is likely located at the place to be searched — the nexus element.” Burnett v. State, 848 So. 2d 1170, 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing United States v. Vigeant, 176 F. 3d 565, 569 (1st Cir.1999)). The trial court here concluded that based on the facts found in the affidavit, there was no nexus between the residence and the criminal behavior. We disagree.
The Cl specified the residence as the location where he could purchase drugs from Kennon, Kennon exited the house in order to make the sale, and Kennon reentered the house immediately after making the sale. Applying the law to these facts, we conclude that the instant affidavit properly alleged that Kennon possessed drugs within the residence. As such, the trial court erred in concluding that the nexus element had not been satisfied.
We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s order granting Kennon’s motion to suppress the physical evidence discovered as a result of the search warrant and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jones, 110 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…acity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. [*22] We believe that the case at bar is controlled by State v. Kennon, 901 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). There, the Cl advised law enforcement that he was able to purchase narcotics at a specific residence. Id. at 376. Acting on that information, the officers observed the Cl approach the residence and observed Kennon exit the reside…1 / 2
-
State v. Abel Delrio and Yenier Rodriguez Delguy, 56 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…’s observations after entry into the back yard. We agree and reverse. We review the trial court’s factual findings for competent, substantial evidence; our review of the trial court’s application of the law to the facts is de novo. State v. Kennon, 901 So. 2d 375, 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing order granting motion to suppress) (citing Caso v. State, 524 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1988); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)). We review the trial court’s probable cause deter…
Authorities Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996)
- Rigoberto Caso v. State, 524 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1988)
- Burnett v. State, 848 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)