STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
PRINCE ALBERT LEWIS ET AL., 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.
Florida Supreme Court's Gieseke decision established that a controlled buy provides sufficient probable cause for a search warrant without requiring allegations of continued contraband existence on the premises.
A search warrant affidavit based on personal observations and a confidential informant's controlled buy contains sufficient probable cause even without allegations that contraband continues to exist on the premises.
[1] A controlled buy by a confidential informant provides sufficient factual basis for probable cause in a search warrant affidavit without requiring allegations of continued…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court suppressed evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant predicated on the affiant's personal observations and a confidential informa…
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 Controlled Buy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order suppressing the evidence which the State seeks to review was based upon the trial court’s consideration of a search warrant predicated upon personal observations of the affiant and a confidential informant in a “controlled buy” circumstance. Under the recent decision of the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Gieseke, 328 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1976),1 which was not available to the trial court at the time of the entry of the order under review, we are of the opinion that the affidavit in question contained sufficient allegations to establish probable cause for the search in question. Accordingly, the order of suppression entered on January 16, 1976 in Case Nos. 75-1870 CF and 75-1877 CF is vacated and set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
MAGER, C. J., and CROSS and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur. . Implicit in this decision is the proposition that the affiant is not required to allege a continued existence of contraband on the premises but, rather, that a controlled buy is a sufficient factual premise from which it can be concluded that additional contraband remained on the premises. The decision in Gerardi v. State, 307 So. 2d 853 (Fla.App. 4th 1975) is factually distinguishable and hence inapplicable.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grady Lee Merit v. State, 342 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…prior to the date of the affidavit. Were that the case, certainly no probable cause would be shown to justify the inference of present criminal activity on the premises. This conclusion does not conflict with the footnote comment in State v. Lewis, 336 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), because implicit in that comment is the proposition that an affidavit for search warrant must state a date for the controlled buy which is not remote in time from the date of the affidavit, since such was the situation in the ca…
-
LaCHANCE v. State, 376 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…ances sufficient to amount to support for a “probable cause” finding. Additionally, I note the lack of any semblance of a controlled buy which is required when a search warrant affidavit is concerned. State v. Gieseke, supra; State v. [*935] Lewis, 336 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); cf. State v. Heape, 369 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979). A controlled buy is one made by an informant at the direction of the police under such circumstances as to negate any contention of planting of evidence or other misconduct…
-
State v. Solomon, 861 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…use to justify the warrant.” Id. The Supreme Court held that the controlled buy alone was a sufficient factual premise from which the court could conclude that additional contraband remained on the premises. Id. at 18. This court, in State v. Lewis, 336 So. 2d 395, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), followed the reasoning in Gieseke and upheld a search warrant predicated upon the personal observations of the affi-ant and a confidential informant in a “controlled buy.” While a controlled buy alone may be sufficient to…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Gieseke, 328 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1976)
- Gerardi v. State, 307 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)