Case Name: Lavinia BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-05-31
Citations: 762 So. 2d 977
Docket Number: No. 4D99-1264
Parties: Lavinia BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SCOLA, ROBERT N., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 762
Pages: 977–979

Head Matter:
Lavinia BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D99-1264.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 31, 2000.
Rehearing Denied July 13, 2000.
Richard G. Lubin and John Olea of Lu-bin and Gano, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Frank J. Ingrassia, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauder-dale, for appellee.

Opinion:
KLEIN, J.
Appellant plead no contest to charges of possessing cocaine and drug paraphernalia, reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. She argues that one trash pull revealing contraband, which was performed based on an anonymous tip, was not probable cause for a search of her home. We affirm.
On October 7, 1997, a Town' of Palm Beach police officer received a telephone call from an anonymous person advising that there were cocaine sales at appellant's home. The caller advised that cocaine was being sold in small clear plastic baggies tied with green twisties. The officer met with the caller at his place of business in Palm Beach two days later, and became aware that the caller was an acquaintance of the appellant. The police had received an anonymous tip several months earlier that drugs were being sold at appellant's home; however, trash pulls performed at that time did not reveal any evidence.
. On October 13, officers retrieved a bag of trash that had been picked up by the Palni Beach Public Works Department and found an envelope addressed to appellant, a two inch plastic straw containing traces of white powder, two cone shaped plastic baggies with cut edges, and two cone shaped plastic baggies which had green twisties and in which the bottoms had been ripped out. One or more of the baggies field tested positive for cocaine. Based on that information the officers obtained a search warrant on October 15, and the search, executed on October 23, produced contraband.
Appellant relies primarily on Raulerson v. State, 714 Sd.2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) in which this court held that there was no probable cause based' on one trash pull made pursuant to an anonymous tip. In Raulerson, based on an anonymous complaint that there was drug activity, a trash pull revealed two cannabis cigarette butts, stems, seeds and pieces of cannabis. We held that the search should have been suppressed because there was no probable cause to "suggest a pattern of continuous drug activity." Although our opinion does not say so, it appears that the panel concluded that the cannabis found in the trash at most showed only probable cause of possession, and that this did not establish probable cause that cannabis would be found on a later date. •
In Raulerson, we distinguished State v. Jacobs, 437 So.2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), because in that case there had been two separate trash pulls. We also distinguished State v. Mayes, 666 So.2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), in which there was only one trash pull but both police and a citizen had observed traffic to and from defendant's home at all, hours. In both Jacobs and Mayes, the courts found probable cause.
We conclude that this case is distinguishable from Raulerson. First,, the baggies were stronger evidence of continuous activity, i.e., sales, than the cannabis found in Raulerson. Second, the items found in the trash pull, clear baggies and green twisty ties, were consistent with the specific information from, the caller that this was how appellant was packaging cocaine for sale. There was, accordingly, probable cause. Mayes.
Appellant also argues that there were false statements or omissions in the search warrant affidavit which is a ground for challenging a search warrant. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). The false informa tion, according to appellant, was that the affidavit stated that the caller was anonymous, but by the time the affidavit had been signed, the police had met him at his place of business. The affidavit also failed to show that the caller was an acquaintance of the appellant. We conclude that, although the affidavit would have been more complete if it had contained this information, these omissions were not material to the issue of whether there was probable cause for the search.
We therefore affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.
SCOLA, ROBERT N., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
TAYLOR, J., dissents with opinion.