Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. George J. SCHWARZBAUER, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1977-03-02
Citations: 342 So. 2d 1085
Docket Number: No. 76-1696
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. George J. SCHWARZBAUER, Appellee.
Judges: GRIMES, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 342
Pages: 1085–1085

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. George J. SCHWARZBAUER, Appellee.
No. 76-1696.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
March 2, 1977.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Anderson & Campbell, New Port Richey, for appellee.

Opinion:
OTT, Judge.
The State appeals the granting of Appel-lee's Motion to Suppress Evidence by the trial court. We reverse.
The affidavit for the search warrant stated that a confidential informant had purchased drugs from the Appellee "within the last five days." The trial court found this not to be sufficiently specific as required by our decision in State v. Mills, 267 So.2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). In that case no allegation was included in the affidavit to fix the date when the alleged illegal activity occurred. In this case the illegal activity is narrowed to the five day period immediately preceding the application.
Though this is a novel issue in this jurisdiction, courts of other jurisdictions have taken the view that when "within" language is used with a specified span of time, e. g., "within the last three days," a sufficiently clear and definite statement has been made provided the period encompassed is not too remote in time for a search warrant to issue. Annot. 100 A.L.R.2d 525 (1965). Five days has not been held to be too remote by the courts of this state. Hamelmann v. State, 113 So.2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959).
In the case under consideration the time of the alleged illegal activity is narrowed to a five day period. This coupled with the other facts alleged in the affidavit demonstrate to us that there was probable cause to issue the search warrant. Therefore, it was error to grant Appellee's Motion to Suppress Evidence.
GRIMES, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.