Court Opinion

ID: 9915477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 16:03:35.743759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:17.859529
License: Public Domain

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                         STATE OF FLORIDA
                        _____________________________

                               Case No. 6D23-310
                   Lower Tribunal Nos. 17-768CF and 20-626CF
                       _____________________________

                                 STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                      Appellant,

                                           v.

                             ALVIN VIANI FREEMAN, III,

                                        Appellee.
                        _____________________________

                 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hendry County.
                              James D. Sloan, Judge.

                                   January 5, 2024

PER CURIAM.

      The State of Florida appeals an order granting Alvin Viani Freeman, III’s

motion to suppress evidence seized from his home pursuant to a search warrant.1

We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(B). Because the trial court

erred in finding the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked sufficient facts to

establish probable cause, we reverse.

      1
       This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this
Court on January 1, 2023.
                                    Background

      On July 16, 2020, Detective Darrin McNeil began his investigation of a

shooting that occurred that day. Detective McNeil signed an affidavit for a search

warrant on November 19, 2020.

      The affidavit2 alleged that Detective McNeil had probable cause to believe

that evidence relating to the crimes of Attempted Homicide and Possession of a

Firearm by a Convicted Felon was being kept at Freeman’s residence. It described

Freeman’s residence, provided directions to it, and identified the items to be seized.

It identified Freeman as a convicted felon. The affidavit recited Detective McNeil’s

training and experience as a 12-year law enforcement officer.

      The affidavit described the incident and the results of the investigation. Four

individuals, including a child, were shot at when their car was leaving an apartment

complex. One adult suffered two gunshot wounds and was rushed to the hospital.

The vehicle was riddled with twenty-one bullet holes, and twenty-seven spent shell

casings were located. Six were 9mm caliber and twenty-one were 7.62.39 caliber,

common to an AK47 rifle. Bullet holes were in the door next to where the child was

sitting. The victims could not identify the shooters. One victim, however, said that

      2
        Rather than quote the entire affidavit, we will summarize its most pertinent
provisions.
                                          2
one shooter was holding a “big or long gun,” and that she pulled the child down to

shield him from the gunfire.

      The affidavit explained that law enforcement developed Freeman and Claude

Williams as suspects.     On August 20, 2020, Detective McNeil interviewed

Freeman’s uncle, Curtis Robinson, who stated that Freeman gave him an AK47 in

the parking lot of a club, and that he took the firearm back to Freeman’s residence.

On September 14, 2020, a detective obtained a sworn statement from Mary Ellis,

whose home was located two houses down from the scene of the shooting. Ellis said

that Williams admitted that he had run through her yard and dropped a clip.

Williams implicitly admitted he later bought the clip back from Ellis’ boyfriend,

who separately confirmed the transaction.

      The affidavit further explained that Detective McNeil interviewed inmate

Ronnie Turner, Jr. on November 6, 2020, after Turner indicated that he had relevant

information on McNeil’s cases. Turner knew Freeman because they were in the

same gang. Turner confirmed that Freeman had firearms at his residence, sometimes

storing them under his mobile home on the south side. Turner claimed Freeman kept

guns as trophies after they were used to commit crimes. Detective McNeil stated

that Turner has given him information in the past that was verified to be true.

      The affidavit also discussed three controlled conversations between a

confidential informant (“CI”) and Williams conducted by law enforcement in

                                          3
November 2020. In two conversations, Williams stated that he, Freeman, and

another individual were the shooters. Williams incriminated himself in all three.

Like Freeman, both Williams and the other shooter were convicted felons. When

asked how he knew that the victims were at the apartment complex, Williams said

“we were called.”3 He explained that “[e]veryone in that car was supposed to die,”

identified the victims, described the firearm used by each perpetrator, and detailed

how the shooting happened. Tellingly, Williams stated that he had the “stick” with

a 100 round clip and saw one of the victims pull the child’s head down. He also said

that Freeman shot first and was a gang member.

      Detective McNeil verified Freeman’s permanent address through probation

and driver’s license records. He observed Freeman at the subject residence several

times, including the day he signed the affidavit. On that date, Detective McNeil

submitted the affidavit and requested a warrant for Freeman’s residence to search

for firearms, live ammunition, firearm parts, spent firearm casings, and electronic

devices, including cell phones. The same day, a Hendry County judge reviewed the

affidavit and issued a search warrant. The warrant was executed on November 20,

2020, and law enforcement discovered drugs, firearms, ammunition, and cell

phones.

      3
         The trial court apparently overlooked that statement because the order found
that the affidavit “sets forth no evidence or allegations” that any suspect used a cell
phone.
                                           4
      Freeman filed a motion to suppress and asserted that Detective McNeil’s

affidavit did not demonstrate probable cause for issuance of the warrant. The trial

court held a non-evidentiary hearing on the motion, and the parties agreed that the

trial court’s review was constrained to the four corners of the affidavit.4 After the

parties presented their arguments, the trial court granted Freeman’s motion and

concluded that the affidavit did not establish a fair probability that contraband or

evidence of a crime would be found at Freeman’s residence. In its order, the trial

court separately reviewed the affidavit’s component parts and found them each

insufficient. The State timely appealed.

                                       Analysis

      When reviewing an order on a motion to suppress, an appellate court defers

to a trial court’s factual findings but reviews its legal conclusions de novo. See

Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 806 (Fla. 2002); State v. Hart, 308 So. 3d 232, 235

(Fla. 5th DCA 2020). Here, our review is de novo because the trial court’s decision

was solely based on its review of Detective McNeil’s affidavit. See State v. Redhead,

347 So. 3d 415, 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (citing Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 806); Hart,

308 So. 3d at 235.

      To establish probable cause, an affidavit for a search warrant must establish

two elements: (1) a person has committed a crime; and (2) evidence relevant to the

      4
          As a result, we express no opinion on the accuracy of the affidavit.
                                           5
probable criminal conduct is likely to be found at the location to be searched. See

Hart, 308 So. 3d at 235 (citing State v. McGill, 125 So. 3d 343, 348 (Fla. 5th DCA

2013)). “In dealing with probable cause, . . . as the very name implies, we deal with

probabilities.   These are not technical; they are the factual and practical

considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal

technicians, act.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231 (1983) (quoting Brinegar v.

United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949)). Probable cause is a “fluid concept” that

turns on probability assessments made in context and is not restricted by “a neat set

of legal rules.” Gates 462 U.S. at 232. The standard of probable cause does not

require a prima facie showing of criminal conduct; only the probability of criminal

conduct. See id. at 235; Hart, 308 So. 3d at 235–36.

      The Supreme Court has recognized that affidavits “are normally drafted by

nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation.             Technical

requirements of elaborate specificity once exacted under common law pleading have

no proper place in this area.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 235 (quoting United States v.

Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108 (1965)); see also Hart, 308 So. 3d at 236. Therefore,

the issuing magistrate’s duty “is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision

whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit . . . there is a fair

probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular

                                         6
place.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 238; see also Willacy v. State, 967 So. 2d 131, 147 (Fla.

2007); Hart, 308 So. 3d at 236.

       In Gates, which involved an affidavit based in part on a letter from an

anonymous informant, the Court declared:

       [A]n informant’s “veracity,” “reliability” and “basis of knowledge” are
       all highly relevant in determining the value of his report. . . . [T]hese
       elements should [not] be understood as entirely separate and
       independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case. . . . [T]hey
       should be understood simply as closely intertwined issues that may
       usefully illuminate the commonsense, practical question whether there
       is “probable cause” to believe that contraband or evidence is located in
       a particular place.

462 U.S. at 230. Florida courts have recognized that a confidential informant’s

veracity, reliability and basis of knowledge may be among the relevant factors in

analyzing whether an affidavit establishes probable cause, but they are not

individually dispositive. See Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 806–07; McGill, 125 So. 3d at

349.

       If a magistrate’s probable cause determination is challenged, a trial court

should not conduct a de novo review and should instead give the magistrate’s

determination great deference. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 236; see also Willacy, 967

So. 2d at 147 (“A magistrate’s determination should be accorded a presumption of

correctness and not disturbed absent a clear demonstration that the issuing magistrate

abused his discretion.”); Hart, 308 So. 3d at 236 (same). Thus, the trial court’s duty

“is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]’
                                           7
that probable cause existed.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 238–39 (quoting Jones v. United

States, 362 U.S. 257, 271 (1960)); see also Willacy, 967 So. 2d at 147; Pagan, 830

So. 2d at 806; Hart, 308 So. 3d at 236; McGill, 125 So. 3d at 348.

      Here, the trial court did not give the proper deference to the issuing

magistrate’s determination that Detective McNeil’s affidavit established probable

cause. The trial court improperly made its own determination de novo. Furthermore,

the trial court dissected the affidavit, scrutinized each part in isolation, and found

probable cause lacking. That piecemeal analysis ran afoul of the totality-of-the-

circumstances approach which mandates trial courts to evaluate affidavits in their

entirety. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 230–39; Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 732

(1984); Willacy, 967 So. 2d at 147; Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 806; Hart, 308 So. 3d at

236; McGill, 125 So. 3d at 348.

      Freeman contends that Detective McNeil’s affidavit was deficient because it

failed to establish the basis of knowledge, reliability and veracity of Robinson,

Turner, and the CI. The applicability and weight of those factors, however, depends

on the totality of the circumstances. Simply put, the cases cited in the trial court’s

order and relied upon by Freeman are inapplicable because the totality of the

circumstances in those cases differ from those here.

      In sum, Detective McNeil’s affidavit provided “a substantial basis for the

issuance of the warrant. No single piece of evidence in it is conclusive. But the

                                          8
pieces fit neatly together and, so viewed, support the [m]agistrate’s determination

that there was” a fair probability that Freeman committed the crimes of Attempted

Homicide and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, and evidence relating

to those crimes was being kept at Freeman’s residence. Upton, 466 U.S. at 733.

Therefore, it was improper for the trial court to grant the motion to suppress.

                                    Conclusion

      We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

      REVERSED and REMANDED.

TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK, J., concur.
WHITE, J., concurs with opinion.

                        _____________________________

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
          AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
                 _____________________________

WHITE, J., concurring, with opinion.

      I join the majority opinion in full. I write to expound on why Freeman’s

challenges to informants Robinson and Turner, and to the CI, are meritless.

      Freeman’s argument regarding Robinson is based on the erroneous premise

that he cannot be treated like a citizen-informant. In Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810

(Fla. 2005), the Florida Supreme Court distinguished an anonymous informant from

                                          9
a citizen-informant. Bryant was arrested for murder based, in part, on statements

from four people. Id. at 824-25. One woman was a victim of dating violence by

Bryant, one was that victim’s sister, and another went with the victim’s sister to the

police station. Id. at 824. Yet another was a man who was in jail for drug charges,

had recently learned that his girlfriend was dating Bryant, and had discarded the

murder weapon after he found it in his car. Id. at 824-25. Bryant argued that all four

should be treated like anonymous informants and that their statements needed to be

independently verified to establish probable cause. Id. at 825.

      The Bryant court found that none of them were anonymous because all of

them were interviewed by the police and identified by name. Id. It determined that

the informants were “much closer to the definition of citizen-informants ‘whose

information is at the high end of the tip-reliability scale.’” Id. (quoting State v.

Evans, 692 So. 2d 216, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). Although they may have had bad

feelings about Bryant, because they did not give statements for pecuniary gain, gave

statements voluntarily and were identified, the supreme court found that the

informants were “citizen-informants whose statements can be relied upon by police

when deciding if probable cause exists.” Bryant, 901 So. 2d at 825. It dispelled the

notion that their statements were irrelevant or unreliable because they were not

victims and did not witness the crime. Id. at 826.

                                         10
      Under Bryant, Robinson is more akin to a citizen-informant than an

anonymous one. He voluntarily explained what he knew during his interview by

Detective McNeil. The detective was not required to ask Robinson whether he had

a motive to lie about his nephew. It was enough that he was identified by name and

was not rewarded for his statement. In addition, Robinson invited criminal charges

if he provided false information and risked payback by Freeman. See Redini v. State,

84 So. 3d 380, 383-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (accountability for false statements and

potential for reprisal by the defendant are among the factors that tend to establish the

reliability of citizen-informants (citing Baptiste v. State, 995 So. 2d 285, 291 (Fla.

2008))).

      With respect to Turner, Detective McNeil swore under oath that Turner had

previously provided information to him and all of it proved to be accurate.

Furthermore, Turner did not need to identify the firearms he saw or when he saw

them. He said that Freeman keeps firearms used in crimes as trophies. See McGill,

125 So. 3d at 349 (information is not stale if there is a basis to believe that evidence

is still on the premises). Williams put a .38 or .380 revolver in Freeman’s hand

during the attempted murder. Robinson said he received an AK47 from Freeman

which he took to Freeman’s home. Freeman is a felon. All information in the

affidavit must be considered under the totality-of-the-circumstances standard.

                                          11
      As to the CI, it was not necessary to define “controlled conversation” in the

affidavit. That is a term of art that law enforcement officers and judges understand

to mean a conversation that is contemporaneously monitored by law enforcement

without the knowledge of all participants. Here, Detective McNeil and the CI knew,

but Williams did not. Detective McNeil personally heard what Williams said during

the controlled conversations. Since the CI was not the conduit for what Williams

said, the affidavit did not need to establish the basis of knowledge, reliability and

veracity of the CI.

      Therefore, the parts of Detective McNeil’s affidavit relating to Robinson,

Turner, and the CI may not be excluded from the probable cause determination.

Instead, those parts must be included in the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis

required by law.

                        _____________________________

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline,
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.

Jason B. Blank, of Haber Blank, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

                                         12