DEBORD v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 81-1539.

Attorney(S)

Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Tampa, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Judges

BOARDMAN, Judge.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Frederick Debord was convicted and sentenced for grand theft. The conviction followed an arrest based on a warrant supported by an affidavit that included statements allegedly made by Walter Johnson, who had been arrested for a drug violation and found in possession of stolen items. Johnson reportedly informed officers that the stolen goods belonged to Debord. However, the affidavit contained a false statement that Detective Moore had personally interviewed Johnson, when in fact he had not. Based on this affidavit, an arrest warrant was issued for Debord, leading to his arrest and the seizure of statements and tangible items. Debord moved to suppress these items on the grounds that the affidavit contained false information and the arrest was unlawful. The trial court denied the motion, and Debord appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from an arrest based on a warrant supported by an affidavit containing knowingly false statements.
Whether the false statements in the affidavit required excision and, if so, whether the remaining affidavit supported probable cause to issue the arrest warrant.
Whether evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful arrest should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The affidavit supporting the arrest warrant contained false statements, specifically that Detective Moore had interviewed Johnson when he had not.
Because the false statements were material to the probable cause determination, they should be excised from the affidavit.
Without the false statements, the affidavit did not establish probable cause, rendering the warrant invalid and the arrest unlawful.
Evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful arrest, including statements and tangible items from appellant, should be suppressed.

Appellee's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the appellee's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)	Trial court's duty to excise false statements from an affidavit and determine if remaining facts support probable cause.	The court applied this principle to excise the false portion of the affidavit and found the remaining allegations insufficient to establish probable cause.
State v. Bogard, 388 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)	Supports the application of the Franks rule within Florida jurisdiction.	The court relied on this precedent to affirm the duty to excise false statements and assess probable cause accordingly.
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)	Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful arrest is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.	The court suppressed the statements and items seized following the unlawful arrest pursuant to this precedent.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified that the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant contained a material falsehood: Detective Moore claimed to have interviewed Johnson when he had not. Under Franks v. Delaware, the court must excise such false statements and then assess whether the remaining affidavit establishes probable cause. Here, after excising the false portion, the affidavit lacked sufficient allegations to support probable cause. Consequently, the arrest warrant was invalid, making Debord's arrest unlawful. Because the statements and tangible items were obtained as a direct result of this unlawful arrest, they were inadmissible under the exclusionary rule articulated in Wong Sun v. United States. The court thus reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this analysis.

Holding and Implications

The court reversed the judgment and sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The direct effect of this decision is that the evidence obtained from Debord's unlawful arrest must be suppressed, requiring the prosecution to proceed without it. The court did not establish new precedent but applied established legal principles concerning affidavits containing false statements, probable cause, and the exclusionary rule.

Show full summary ...

FREDERICK DEBORD, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.

BOARDMAN, Judge.

Frederick Debord appeals a judgment and sentence for grand theft, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We reverse.

On January 3, 1981, the police arrested one Walter Johnson for a drug violation. In a search incident to that arrest, certain stolen items were discovered in Johnson's possession. Johnson informed the arresting officers that the stolen goods belonged not to him, but to appellant. This information was relayed to Detective Moore, who apparently was in charge of the investigation of the burglary in which the goods were stolen. Although Moore had not personally interviewed Johnson, he stated that he had in a sworn affidavit.

The affidavit indicates that Moore contacted Johnson and that Johnson told the affiant/officer that the stolen items had previously been in appellant's possession. This was not so; the affiant had never contacted or interviewed Johnson. Based on this affidavit, an arrest warrant was served on appellant. In a search incident to the execution of that warrant, certain statements and tangible items were obtained from appellant. Appellant sought suppression of these statements and items.

Where an affidavit forms the actual basis of a warrant, the trial court has the duty to determine if the statements contained therein are, in fact, untrue. If so, the court is permitted to excise the false parts of the affidavit. If the remaining allegations of the affidavit will still support a probable cause determination, then the court may find that the warrant is valid. If not, then the warrant is invalid, and the arrest is unlawful. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); State v. Bogard, 388 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Under the circumstances here, the entire portion of the affidavit concerning Johnson's alleged statements should have been excised. Without these statements, probable cause will not lie to support the warrant on the basis of the affidavit. Therefore, appellant's arrest was unlawful. Since the aforementioned statements and items were a product of the unlawful arrest, they should have been suppressed as fruits thereof. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).

Accordingly, appellant's judgment and sentence is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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