Gayle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gayle v. State

712 So. 2d 846, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8505, 1998 WL 390522

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2933

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 712 So. 2d 846 (Gayle v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gayle v. State, 712 So. 2d 846, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8505, 1998 WL 390522 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this belated appeal, appellant seeks reversal of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained through the use of a confidential informant. Appellant argues that the State failed to establish the reliability of the informant. The record does not support this argument. Instead, the record establishes the informant’s reliability based on the reliable tips provided by the informant in the past, the details provided by the informant which indicated his personal knowledge of the situation, and the defendant’s activity observed by police which verified the informant’s tip. See State v. Butler, 655 So.2d 1123 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the motion to suppress.

DELL, GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this belated appeal, appellant seeks reversal of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained through the use of a confidential informant. Appellant argues that the State failed to establish the reliability of the informant. The record does not support this argument. Instead, the record establishes the informant’s reliability based on the reliable tips provided by the informant in the past, the details provided by the informant which indicated his personal knowledge of the situation, and the defendant’s activity observed by police which verified the informant’s tip. See State v. Butler, 655 So.2d 1123 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the motion to suppress.

DELL, GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 So. 2d 846, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8505, 1998 WL 390522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gayle-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack