Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John GEORGOUDIOU, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-04-05
Citations: 560 So. 2d 1241
Docket Number: No. 88-1508
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John GEORGOUDIOU, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH and SHARP, W., JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 560
Pages: 1241–1249

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John GEORGOUDIOU, Appellee.
No. 88-1508.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
April 5, 1990.
Rehearing Denied May 21, 1990.
Melvin David Stack, Deputy State Atty., Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Dan R. Warren of Judge & Warren, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
EN BANC OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
COBB, Judge.
Pursuant to an en banc motion for rehearing filed by the state, we withdraw our prior opinion in this cause dated June 29, 1989, and substitute the following:
The issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting a motion to suppress contraband evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, executed at the residence of the appellee, John Georgoud-iou. The search warrant was based upon the affidavit of one Officer Martino, an investigator with the Daytona Beach Shores Police Department. The affidavit of Martino, after specifically describing the premises to be searched, recited:
On December 3, 1986, information was obtained from a reliable source that the aforementioned residence is a source for large quantities of cocaine, cananbis [sic], and hashish.
The investigation has revealed that the occupant of this residence, John Geor-goudio has been, and presently is involved in the Sale and Delivery and Use of said controlled substances at that premises. Within the past 18 hours a confidential informant has met with John Georgoudio at the aforementioned residence and arrangements were made for the purchase of 1 ounce of cocaine for a price of $1,400.00 with the purchase to be made at the residence on December 4, 1986. This conversation was taped recorded [sic] with a hidden body transmitter, and the confidential informant was under surveillance while at the residence.
The investigation has revealed that the suspect has been involved in this activity for at least two years, having been the supplier and having availability of ounces of cocaine, hashish and cannabis. The confidential informant has frequently purchased ounces of cocaine from the suspect and up to ¼ pound of cocaine at one given time.
During the conversation at the residence located at 1507 North Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, between the confidential informant and John Georgoudio, the confidential informant asked for a price of $1,300 for an ounce of cocaine but John Geor-goudio stated, the lowest he would go is $1,400 per ounce of cocaine. The confidential informant told John Georgoudio he wanted as pure a cocaine as he could get. John Georgoudio stated it would be pure or good cocaine like the flake that he has sold to the confidential informant in the past. While the confidential informant was at the residence he saw an approximately 4 foot cannabis plant hanging in the closet to dry. Also observed in the residence a pound of hashish a cannabis beside the plant referred to above [sic]. A triple beam scale, baggies, and pipes used in the sale or ingestion of narcotics were observed in residence.
The Confidential Informant was told by John Georgoudio to come back around 4:00 P.M. tomorrow afternoon, Thursday, December 4, 1986, and he could pick up the cocaine at the 1507 North Atlantic Avenue residence.
Detective Mike Martino was present during the surveillance and monitored the conversations between John Geor-goudio and the Confidential Informant which were recorded over the body transmitter on December 3, 1986.
The testimony presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress revealed that the informant, Moshoures, and a man named Vrochotoulos were under arrest for possession of illegal drugs. Neither man had given information to the police in the past. After his arrest, Moshoures gave the police a note stating that he would give information in order to get out of trouble. The information he gave implicated Georgoud-iou in drug dealing, and prompted the police to send Moshoures to Georgoudiou's home equipped with a monitored body transmitter. The conversation that took place there between Georgoudiou and Moshoures resulted in the issuance and execution of the search warrant herein at issue.
The suppression hearing was conducted in three sessions, the last one taking place on September 23, 1987. Moshoures did not testify at the hearing. Nine months later, the trial court signed an order dated June 24, 1988, suppressing the evidence found at Georgoudiou's residence. To suppress that evidence, it was necessary for the trial court to conclude that the judge issuing the search warrant was misled by information in Martino's affidavit which Martino knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). The trial court reached that conclusion based upon three factual findings:
(1) Martino's affidavit referred to the informant, Moshoures, as a "reliable source," although he had never before provided information to law enforcement. The trial court determined that therefore the state could not rely on information from Mosh-oures that Georgoudiou's residence was a source of drug activity, and had been one for at least two years;
(2) The tape referred to in the affidavit was "of poor quality and of little or no evidentiary value . the language used in the affidavit for the issuance of the. search warrant cannot be heard on the tape"; and
(3) The issuing magistrate was not told that the law enforcement officers had advised a confidential informant that making a case against the defendant might require illegal conduct of the informant.
We must consider these three findings in light of the record. The trial court's first finding — i.e., Michael Mosh-oures had never provided law enforcement with information in the past — is irrelevant. The affidavit for the search warrant was based on what Martino heard Georgoudiou say through the monitor transmitter, not on what Moshoures told Martino. Marti-no's (not Moshoures') reliability was the basis for the issuance of the search warrant. Moreover, an informant's information may provide its own indicia of reliability. State v. Vanwinkle, 444 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 450 So.2d 489 (Fla.1984). Controlled buys were upheld as the basis for probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant in State v. Moise, 522 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), and State v. Cohen, 442 So.2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Although Martino's affidavit refers to Moshoures as a "reliable source," which the tape recorded conversation apparently confirmed, the affidavit never states that Moshoures had provided information in the past.
The real issue is the validity of the trial judge's determination that Martino played fast and loose with the truth in his affidavit, a determination purportedly based upon the finding that the tape introduced in evidence was inaudible. At the suppression hearing defense counsel did not contend that the monitored tape recording of the conversation between Georgoudiou and Moshoures was inaudible. The state had furnished a copy of that tape to the defense, and it is clear from their arguments to the trial judge that both sides had listened to, and understood, the recording. The argument of the defense counsel was that the tape was clear — and revealed that such words as cocaine, cannabis, and hashish were not exchanged between Georgoud-iou and Moshoures in their conversation of December 3, 1986, which purportedly set up a cocaine sale for the next day.
It was the defense which offered its copy of the tape recording into evidence to support its argument that the tape disproved the information asserted in Martino's affidavit. Therefore, the inaudibility of that tape copy militated against the argument of the defense, not the argument of the state. The original of the tape was never introduced, and remained in the possession of the state at all times.
At the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel insisted that the court reporter prepare a transcript of the tape, to aid appellate review. The state objected, but the trial court authorized a transcript for the purpose urged by the defense. The trial court delegated to defense counsel the responsibility of so instructing the court reporter. Unfortunately, this was never done.
The trial court did not act upon the motion until some nine months after the hearing. At that time the trial court reasoned that if the defense copy of the tape was then unclear, it meant that Martino had lied. This reasoning, of course, is totally illogical. The fact that the defense copy of the tape was inaudible some nine months after the hearing, after having been heard while in the possession of the defense prior to being filed with the trial court, does not show that the original tape was inaudible, nor does it prove what Martino heard — or did not hear — over the monitor. It proves only that the defense failed to establish the point it argued at the hearing, and needed the original tape for that purpose. It also indicates that the trial judge should have required production of the original tape upon discovery of the defect in the copy.
On appeal, both counsel at oral argument assumed the audibility of the tape copy in evidence and urged the original appellate panel to listen to the tape in order to verify whether or not a drug deal was referred to with sufficient specificity. But when this court attempted review, we discovered that the tape had been erased. We can only assume that this occurred inadvertently while the tape was in the possession of the trial court, since the order below refers to the "poor quality" of the tape and not to its total inaudibility.
Attached to the state's memorandum of law filed with the trial court was the state's transcript of the disputed tape. That transcript is not in evidence, and thus its contents cannot control the outcome of this appeal. Nevertheless, the fact that such a transcript was presented and argued to the trial court as an accurate, representation of the tape, without objection, should be noted.
The trial court's third factual finding — i.e., law enforcement advice that an informant might have to engage in illegal conduct — is equally unpersuasive. It, is based on the testimony of Vrochotoulos, who was not the informant supplying the information that went into Martino's affidavit. Vrochotoulos testified that an officer named Monaco told him, as a prospective informant against Georgoudiou, that he "might have to smoke some marijuana to make it look good." This purported conversation did not occur in the presence of either Martino (the affiant) or Mosh-oures (the informant relied upon by the affiant). Furthermore, a comment made to Vrochotoulos cannot possibly bear on whether Martino's affidavit constitutes a reckless disregard for the truth under Leon and Franks. What possible difference can it make whether Vrochotoulos was told that he might have to engage in illegal conduct? For that matter, what difference does it make if he did?
The record simply does not support the suppression order. There was no logical or legal basis in the record for the trial court's conclusion that Martino's affidavit was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. Accordingly, the instant suppression order is reversed. See State v. Wildes, 468 So.2d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, W., JJ., concur.
HARRIS, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion, with which DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result only.
COWART, J., dissents, with opinion in which DANIEL, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur.
PETERSON, J., dissents, with opinion.
. The record reflects, contrary to the implications of Judge Cowart's dissent, that a copy of the state's motion for en banc rehearing was duly served on counsel for the defense on July 14, 1989, and a written response to the motion was filed with this court on July 19, 1989, by defense counsel. All procedural and substantive due process has been complied with.
. If the state's transcript is an accurate representation of the conversation between Georgoudiou and Moshoures, there can be no reasonable doubt that a purchase of one ounce of cocaine by Moshoures from Georgoudiou at a price of 11,400.00 was negotiated on December 3, 1986.