Case ID: so2d_388/html/0350-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. DAUKSCH, Chief Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ben Holland GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 78-1779/T4-183.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Oct. 1, 1980.
    
      Richard S. Rhodes, Orlando, for appellant.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Gregory C. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dayto-na Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

DAUKSCH, C. J., dissents with opinion.

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. In my opinion the search warrant was defective in two ways. First, the place to be searched was not sufficiently described to lead the executioner of the warrant to the house. Just because the affiant was the one who served the warrant and knew where the place was located does not cure the defective description.

Second, although the police officer whose affidavit supplied the basis for the issuance of the warrant said he relied upon a person who was a “confidential reliable informant”, it was later established the “informant” was not a previously relied upon source. That defect, coupled with the description inadequacy, leads me to say we should reverse the conviction.