Hyatt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hyatt v. State

329 So. 2d 43, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14017

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 1976

DocketNo. Z-403

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 329 So. 2d 43 (Hyatt 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

Hyatt v. State, 329 So. 2d 43, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14017 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

MILLS, Judge.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of guilt and sentence to prison which were entered after a plea of nolo contendere was made to a charge of possession of marijuana in excess of five grams, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

The issue for our determination, is whether the trial court erred in its denial of the motion to suppress.

Lyons, a special agent with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in Tucson, Arizona, obtained information from a confidential informant indicating [44]*44that an individual wearing a red coat would leave Arizona by airplane bound for Jacksonville, Florida, and would be carrying controlled drugs. Lyons gave this information to Hendricks, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration office in Jacksonville, Florida, by telephone. A few hours later in the day, Lyons talked by telephone to Mapes, another special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration office in Jacksonville, Florida, and gave him more information. In addition, Lyons informed Mapes that the informant from whom he obtained the information was very reliable. However, he gave no circumstances to support his statement.

Mapes went to the Jacksonville International Airport where he began surveillance of the defendant. Subsequently, and based solely on the information furnished him by Lyons, but without a warrant, Mapes searched the automobile occupied by the defendant, arrested the defendant, and seized the controlled drugs. It was these drugs which defendant sought unsuccessfully to suppress.

All of the information possessed by Mapes was double hearsay and amounted to no more than a tip. There was neither probable cause nor trustworthy information to justify the action taken by Mapes. Sagonias v. State, 89 So.2d 252 (Fla.1956).

The trial court erred in its denial of the motion to suppress. Therefore, we must reverse the judgment and sentence.

McCORD, J., concurs. BOYER, C. J., dissents.

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

MILLS, Judge.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of guilt and sentence to prison which were entered after a plea of nolo contendere was made to a charge of possession of marijuana in excess of five grams, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

The issue for our determination, is whether the trial court erred in its denial of the motion to suppress.

Lyons, a special agent with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in Tucson, Arizona, obtained information from a confidential informant indicating [44]*44that an individual wearing a red coat would leave Arizona by airplane bound for Jacksonville, Florida, and would be carrying controlled drugs. Lyons gave this information to Hendricks, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration office in Jacksonville, Florida, by telephone. A few hours later in the day, Lyons talked by telephone to Mapes, another special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration office in Jacksonville, Florida, and gave him more information. In addition, Lyons informed Mapes that the informant from whom he obtained the information was very reliable. However, he gave no circumstances to support his statement.

Mapes went to the Jacksonville International Airport where he began surveillance of the defendant. Subsequently, and based solely on the information furnished him by Lyons, but without a warrant, Mapes searched the automobile occupied by the defendant, arrested the defendant, and seized the controlled drugs. It was these drugs which defendant sought unsuccessfully to suppress.

All of the information possessed by Mapes was double hearsay and amounted to no more than a tip. There was neither probable cause nor trustworthy information to justify the action taken by Mapes. Sagonias v. State, 89 So.2d 252 (Fla.1956).

The trial court erred in its denial of the motion to suppress. Therefore, we must reverse the judgment and sentence.

McCORD, J., concurs. BOYER, C. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 So. 2d 43, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyatt-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack