Two grow operations and citizen informants

Bailbondsmen were in defendant’s house to pick him up when they discovered a grow operation, and they called the police. The defendant consented to a search. There was probable cause for issuance of a warrant and the investigation was inevitably going to lead to a search warrant if he didn’t consent. The consent was valid by inevitable discovery. Rodriguez v. State, 129 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

A propane truck driver making a delivery saw a grow operation with bright lights and all, and he reported it to the police [a citizen informer]. The affidavit for the search warrant based on his representation was issued with probable cause. Even if it wasn’t [there was], the good faith exception would save it because it wasn’t so lacking in probable cause it couldn’t be relied upon. State v. Elliott, 2013-Ohio-5753, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 6029 (5th Dist. December 23, 2013).* [This could have been a lot simpler: Look, the truck driver is a citizen informant, and his report is not subject to close scrutiny. He said he saw a grow, and the police took that to get a search warrant. How is that not PC?]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.