Title: State v. Gieseke

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

328 So. 2d 16 (1976)
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Mark GIESEKE et al., Respondents.
No. 46804.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 18, 1976.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Loyd C. Mosley, Clearwater, for respondents.
BOYD, Judge.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported at 305 So. 2d 6. Our jurisdiction *17 is based on conflict[1] between the decision sought to be reviewed and State v. Smith.[2] The facts of the case are as follows.
Having been charged by information with possession of marijuana paraphernalia in violation of the Florida Drug Abuse Law, Respondents filed a Motion to Suppress the Evidence and attacked the sufficiency of the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based, their main thrust being that this affidavit failed to include adequate allegations to establish probable cause for the search of a certain residence which was under the control and custody of one of the Respondents. The affidavit was sworn to by one Douglas H. Carey, detective of the Police Department of the City of Clearwater. The affidavit stated in part:
The trial court granted Respondent's Motion to Suppress, and the District Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed per curiam without a written majority opinion but with a dissenting opinion filed.
Upon careful examination of the record and the argument of counsel we are compelled to reverse the decision of the District Court of Appeal for the following reasons.
It is clear that, when all reference to hearsay testimony is eliminated, the fact that Affiant personally supervised the controlled buy resulting in the purchase of contraband from the described premises was sufficient probable cause to justify the warrant. In this Court's recent opinion in Findlay v. State,[3] we quoted with approval the following excerpt from State v. Smith:[4]
*18 Thus, the Findlay decision, supra, clearly indicates that superfluous hearsay information will not vitiate a determination of probable cause where that determination is sufficiently supported by direct testimony of an affiant who personally experienced events which by themselves generate probable cause.
Furthermore, based on United States v. Harris,[5] it was error for the trial court to suppress for lack of probable cause evidence seized pursuant to a valid warrant where that warrant relied in part on hearsay testimony of a reliable informant whose reliability and veracity were independently demonstrated through a successfully controlled buy. Additionally, it appears that both the trial court and the District Court of Appeal overlooked State v. Lewis,[6] which is factually analogous; in that case, the District Court of Appeal, Second District, stated, inter alia, "... such an affidavit need not even allege that the informant is a reliable source... ." Also factually similar is Law v. State,[7] in which the District Court of Appeal, Second District, specifically found that a search of the informant's person by the affiant both before and immediately after the purchase of the drug was sufficient personal knowledge on which to base the issuance of the search warrant.
Applying the directives of State v. Wolff[8] to the instant facts, we conclude (1) that the sworn testimony of the police officer was of sufficient quality to satisfy the test of truthfulness and integrity of the witness; (2) the successful controlled buy was a sufficient demonstration of the probable reliability of the informant's intelligence information relative to the presence of additional contraband on the premises; and (3) the controlled buy alone is sufficient factual premise from which the Affiant and the Magistrate could conclude that additional contraband remained on the premises.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, is quashed and this cause is remanded for further action in the trial court consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C.J., and ROBERTS, ENGLAND and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
[1]  Article V, Section 3(b) (3), Florida Constitution.
[2]  233 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1970).
[3]  316 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1975).
[4]  Supra, Note 2 at 398.
[5]  403 U.S. 573, 91 S. Ct. 2075, 29 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1971).
[6]  225 So. 2d 170 (Fla.App. 1969); cert. den. 232 So. 2d 178 (Fla.).
[7]  292 So. 2d 596 (Fla.App. 1974).
[8]  310 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1975).