# State v. Eshuk

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · June 14, 1977 · 347 So. 2d 704

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7484829

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Florida v. Stanley Edward ESHUK
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** June 14, 1977
- **Citations:** 347 So. 2d 704; 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16155
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Barkdull
- **Judges:** Barkdull, Carroll, Hendry, Ret
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7484829

## Opinion text

BARKDULL, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The trial judge dismissed a criminal prosecution because of improper conduct on the part of law enforcement officers and a paid informant. One Woosley was arrested by the Opa-Loc-ka police for a series of burglaries. In exchange for getting these charges dropped, he offered to make drug cases against other persons. The Public Safety Department was contacted; two police officers interviewed Woosley and took him on as a paid informant if he proved useful. Subsequent to this employment, the confidential informant arranged a meeting be *710 tween the Public Safety Department officers and the defendant Eshuk. As a result of the buy in the Eshuk transaction, the confidential informant proved his credibility to the officers, and he then commenced to make other cases for which he was paid $50.00 each.
I recognize that confidential informants may be used and paid for information relating to a crime already committed; however, I think it would be a grievous error to encourage the payment of confidential informants on a contingent basis for acts they are to arrange in the future and, therefore, I would affirm the action of the trial judge. See: Williamson v. United States, 311 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1962).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7484829. Public record. Not legal advice.