State v. Gill

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Gill

502 So. 2d 59, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 467, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6618

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1669

StatusPublished

This text of 502 So. 2d 59 (State v. Gill) 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

State v. Gill, 502 So. 2d 59, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 467, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6618 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

The state appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress marijuana and cocaine found in a house pursuant to a search warrant. The trial court, relying upon King v. State, 410 So.2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), concluded that the affidavit in support of the search warrant did not set forth with sufficient specificity the time when the marijuana and cocaine had been seen in the house by a confidential informant. We disagree and reverse.

The affidavit, in saying when the confidential informant observed the drugs in the house, used the phrase “within the past 10 days.” King approves the use of that type of phrase, which does not pinpoint the exact date of the observation, so long as the observation was “within a certain stated period which is not remote to the date of application for the search warrant.” 410 So.2d at 587. King specifically refers to a ten day period as an example of a period not necessarily too remote. Id.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

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