State v. Petroni
123 So. 3d 62
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Police obtained a warrant to search Paul A. Petroni’s home based on an affidavit reporting two recent controlled buys of cocaine from Petroni by a confidential informant, and a statement that Petroni had a source and kept trafficking quantities at home.
- Affiant Detective Bates described searches of the informant and his vehicle pre- and post-buys, tails/observation by detectives, and field tests of the purchased substance as positive for cocaine; officers recovered 42 grams during the search.
- Petroni moved to suppress the seized cocaine under Franks, alleging the affidavit (1) contained false statements (an officer had not actually seen entry during one buy), (2) omitted material facts (buy quantities were small, informant unproven/unreliable, buys not controlled, observations were historical), and (3) that inclusion of omitted facts would defeat probable cause.
- The trial court granted suppression under Franks, finding that correcting omissions/falsehoods would defeat probable cause and render the information stale.
- The State appealed the suppression of the cocaine; Petroni cross-appealed the partial denial of his motion to suppress post-search statements (he conceded pre-Miranda statements were inadmissible but argued post-Miranda statements were tainted by the search).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Franks attack validly alleged deception (false statements or omissions intended to mislead issuing judge) | Petroni: affidavit falsely represented informant observed current in-home supply and omitted material facts (small buy size, informant reliability, buys not controlled, historical observation), which if corrected would vitiate probable cause | State: omissions/clarifications do not allege intentional or reckless deception of the magistrate; Franks requires such a showing before a hearing | Reversed suppression: Petroni failed to allege intentional or reckless deception; Franks not implicated, so suppression on that basis improper |
| Whether statements made by Petroni after the search should be suppressed as fruit of alleged illegal search | Petroni: post-Miranda statements were tainted by the illegal search and must be excluded | State: search was lawful (court reversed suppression); alternatively, defendant conceded pre-Miranda exclusion but told trial court post-Miranda statements were admissible, failing to preserve a broader objection | Affirmed denial: search not illegal on appeal and Petroni waived/preserved only limited objection to post-Miranda statements, so appellate court declines to entertain new argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (Franks sets standard for attacking warrants based on intentional or reckless false statements in affidavits)
- Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1995) (extensions to omissions: defendant must show omitted material would destroy probable cause and that omissions resulted from intentional or reckless deception)
- United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297 (4th Cir. 1990) (discusses affidavit omissions and cautions against endless Franks hearings for non-deceptive omissions)
- Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935 (Fla. 2005) (issues not preserved by contemporaneous trial objection are not entertained on appeal)