Hilton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hilton v. State

537 So. 2d 1137, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 391, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 560, 1989 WL 8356

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 1989

DocketNo. 88-675

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 537 So. 2d 1137 (Hilton 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

Hilton v. State, 537 So. 2d 1137, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 391, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 560, 1989 WL 8356 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

After oral argument before a three judge panel this case has been considered by the en banc court upon supplemental briefs. The controlling issue concerns the sufficiency of affidavits executed by investigating police officers concerning purported lottery activity to support the issuance of search warrants for the appellant’s home and vehicle. The trial judge determined that probable cause had in fact been demonstrated and accordingly denied the motion to suppress contraband secured when the warrants were served. We agree with this conclusion and accordingly affirm the defendant’s conviction for possession of paraphernalia entered upon a nolo plea which preserved the issue for appellate review.

We reach this conclusion upon the authority of the decisions of Labrada v. State, 531 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) and Machado v. State, 363 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 459 (Fla.1979) which upheld the sufficiency of virtually identical supporting affidavits. See also State v. Cross, 535 So.2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (en banc); State v. Maya, 529 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). To the extent that Rodriguez v. State, 420 So.2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 429 So.2d 7 (Fla.1983) is in conflict with Labrada, Machado or this holding, it is overruled.

AFFIRMED.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

After oral argument before a three judge panel this case has been considered by the en banc court upon supplemental briefs. The controlling issue concerns the sufficiency of affidavits executed by investigating police officers concerning purported lottery activity to support the issuance of search warrants for the appellant’s home and vehicle. The trial judge determined that probable cause had in fact been demonstrated and accordingly denied the motion to suppress contraband secured when the warrants were served. We agree with this conclusion and accordingly affirm the defendant’s conviction for possession of paraphernalia entered upon a nolo plea which preserved the issue for appellate review.

We reach this conclusion upon the authority of the decisions of Labrada v. State, 531 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) and Machado v. State, 363 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 459 (Fla.1979) which upheld the sufficiency of virtually identical supporting affidavits. See also State v. Cross, 535 So.2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (en banc); State v. Maya, 529 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). To the extent that Rodriguez v. State, 420 So.2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 429 So.2d 7 (Fla.1983) is in conflict with Labrada, Machado or this holding, it is overruled.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 So. 2d 1137, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 391, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 560, 1989 WL 8356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilton-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack