Opinion ID: 43414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Third Suppression Motion

Text: Manning filed a third motion to suppress, reasserting that the search warrant was issued as a result of an affidavit by officer Hunnings containing false information. The third motion made the same arguments presented in the second motion to suppress, but included an affidavit from Sanders indicating that he had not purchased crack cocaine from Manning. During a hearing, Sanders testified that he was not searched by officer Hunnings prior to going to Manning’s house, and he never bought cocaine from 10 Manning. He received a total of $400 for his assistance, and he told officers that he bought cocaine from Manning because he wanted the money. Officer David Odom, a Tallahassee police officer assigned to the DEA task force, testified that Sanders told him that he had obtained crack cocaine from Manning. Officer Odom had reviewed with Sanders the videotape of the third controlled buy, and Sanders pointed out on the videotape when Manning was retrieving the cocaine. Officer Odom further testified that, in their conversations about the second suppression motion, Sanders denied hiding crack in his mouth and pointed out that he spoke freely during the controlled buys and would not have been able to do so if he had crack in his mouth. The district court denied Manning’s third motion, again finding that Manning had not shown that officer Hunnings had a reckless disregard for the truth. The court found that Sanders lacked credibility as a result of his prior inconsistent statements. The court also concluded that the precautions taken by officer Hunnings and the surveillance recordings supported officer Hunnings’s testimony that he believed Sanders actually bought cocaine from Manning.