State v. Ridenour, 84-263
| Decision Date | 24 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-263,84-263 |
| Citation | 453 So.2d 193 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Dennis L. RIDENOUR, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
William B. Seidel, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ.
This is an appeal by the state from an order suppressing the fruits of an electronic surveillance of certain conversations of the defendant in his home conducted by an undercover police officer equipped with a "body bug" with the officer's consent. The defendant attacked the surveillance in his motion to suppress as having been unconstitutionally conducted under Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Sarmiento, 397 So.2d 643 (Fla.1981). The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress. We reverse.
Subsequent to the Sarmiento decision, Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution was amended to provide that the right secured thereby "shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court," and that "[a]rticles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution." We hold that Sarmiento does not survive these amendments to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution inasmuch as there are no United States Supreme Court decisions holding the same as Sarmiento; indeed, there are United States Supreme Court decisions in conflict with Sarmiento. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971); Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462 (1963). This being so, Sarmiento is no longer the law of Florida and was erroneously relied on by the trial court as authority to suppress the fruits of the subject electronic surveillance. Moreover, it is plain that the amendments to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution are applicable to this case because the subject electronic surveillance took place after January 3, 1983, the effective date of said amendments. See State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla.1983).
The order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
I concur in the opinion and judgment of the court. I write separately, however, to express my sincere regret at the passage of the recent amendments to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Schaeffer
...law enforcement personnel. Madsen v. State, 502 So.2d 948 (Fla.App.1987); State v. Hume, 463 So.2d 499 (Fla.App.1985); State v. Ridenour, 453 So.2d 193 (Fla.App.1984); see also Wilks, "The New Federalism in Criminal Procedure: Death of the Phoenix?," in Developments in State Constitutional ......
-
State v. Bernie
...amendment became effective. See State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla.1983); State v. Hume, 463 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); State v. Ridenour, 453 So.2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA (1984). Second, the amendment enunciates that Florida's exclusionary rule now is one which is tied to the Fourth Amen......
-
State v. Outler, 3D07-1490.
...Trying to Make Sense Out of a Tangled Mess, 67 Alb. L. Rev. 691, 696, n. 27 (2004). But see State v. Ridenour, 453 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (Hubbart, J., concurring). 2. Outler contended below the entirety of this telephone conversation was inadmissible hearsay because Detective Ma......
-
State v. Small, 85-88
...intrusion than that afforded by the federal constitution." State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla.1983).7 State v. Ridenour, 453 So.2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).8 "The new amendment [to Article I, Section 12, Florida Constitution], however, links Florida's exclusionary rule to the federal......