Hurst v. State, ZZ-197
| Decision Date | 28 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. ZZ-197,ZZ-197 |
| Parties | Jeffrey Michael HURST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bill Salmon, Gainesville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Gregory C. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was arrested and charged with possessing and delivering controlled substances, possessing paraphernalia and carrying a concealed weapon. The paraphernalia count was dismissed on October 21, 1980, and appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to Count II of the information charging him with delivery of a controlled substance. He specifically reserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motions to suppress physical and oral evidence obtained as a result of an alleged illegal arrest, information obtained via the "bodybug" placed on the confidential informant, and items seized from his pickup truck pursuant to an allegedly defective search warrant.
On April 24, 1980, Sonny Huddleston was stopped by officers of the Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit of the Gainesville Police Department and told that he would be arrested unless he cooperated with the officers. The next day Huddleston, acting as an undercover agent, contacted the defendant at his home by telephone and made arrangements to meet him behind the Maas Brothers Store in Gainesville, Florida. This conversation was recorded without benefit of a warrant or court order. Pursuant to arrangements made over the telephone, Huddleston and the defendant met at approximately 1:00 p. m. on April 25, and Huddleston entered the defendant's vehicle wearing a "bodybug." As a result of a drug-related conversation overheard by the officers, the appellant was removed from his truck and detained while a search warrant was obtained. A search of the vehicle disclosed a quantity of methaqualone in a closed shopping bag on the seat.
It is the appellant's position that the warrantless interception of the private communication conducted in his vehicle was a violation of his expectation of privacy as guaranteed under Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, a violation made even more grievous by the coercive manner in which the cooperation of the confidential informant was obtained. It must first be noted that the Florida Constitution prohibits only "unreasonable" interception of private communications by any means.
Florida has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zacke v. State
...1982) (Sarmiento not applicable to conversation in a parking lot); Miller v. State, 411 So.2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Hurst v. State, 409 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (body bug used by undercover agent in defendant's pick-up truck produced admissible evidence); Morningstar v. State, 405 ......
-
Ruiz v. State, 81-1127
...except insofar as it authorizes a warrantless interception of a private conversation conducted in the home. Hurst v. State, 409 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Sarmiento has not been expanded beyond the perimeters of the defendant's home or its functional equivalent. See, e.g., Hurst (Sarmi......