Mastrapa v. Money Laundering Strike Force
| Decision Date | 26 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D05-2889.,3D05-2889. |
| Citation | 928 So.2d 421 |
| Parties | Joe MASTRAPA, Bail Yes, Inc., and American Bonding Insurance Corp., Appellants, v. SOUTH FLORIDA MONEY LAUNDERING STRIKE FORCE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donet, McMillan & Trontz, Miami; John W. Mitchell, New York, NY, for appellants.
Matthew Klecka, for appellee.
Before FLETCHER, SHEPHERD, and CORTIÑAS, JJ.
Joe Mastrapa, Bail Yes, Inc., and American Bonding Insurance Corp., appellants, appeal from an order which denied in part their petition for document production brought pursuant to Chapter 942, Florida Statutes (2005), the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings.1 The appellants are all defendants in a criminal case presently pending in Supreme Court, New York County, State of New York.
Pursuant to Chapter 9422 the New York court certified that certain documents held by the records custodian for the South Florida Money Laundering Strike Force were to be produced in New York. The certificate was presented to the (Florida) court — the Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial Circuit — and a proceeding begun, pursuant to section 942.02, in the Florida court. The Strike Force produced some of the documents but objected to the production of other documents (identified as those in paragraphs 2 and 7). The Strike Force contended that the issuance of a subpoena compelling the production of the paragraph 2 and 7 documents would operate as an undue hardship on the Strike Force as the information contained therein is extremely sensitive information concerning ongoing law enforcement investigations.
The Florida court determined that the Paragraph 2 and 7 documents were not material to the defense in the New York criminal proceeding and their production would be unduly burdensome to the Strike Force. Thus he denied the production request.
We agree that the production of the paragraph 2 and 7 documents would be unduly burdensome. The documents contain the operating structure, strategy, and techniques that the Strike Force employs to detect and combat narcotic trafficking and money laundering. As the Strike Force argues, forcing disclosure of the internal operating procedure of the Strike Force would "put the blueprint of a money laundering task force in the hands of an accused money launderer, and by corollary, the general public."
It is clearly good public policy to keep such information where it belongs, with the Strike Force. Timoney v. City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel, 917 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), while it did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bastos, No. 3D06-1647.
...holding is (3), and (2) is dictum, but we need not consider that possibility here. 2. Indeed, in Mastrapa v. So. Fla. Money Laundering Strike Force, 928 So.2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), we assumed, without discussion, that the Uniform Law authorized issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to a reco......