State v. Steinbrecher, 79-1318
Decision Date | 14 October 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 79-1318,79-1318 |
Citation | 389 So.2d 1043 |
Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Stanley H. STEINBRECHER, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Janet Reno, State's Atty. and Theda R. James, Asst. State's Atty., for appellant.
Bernard A. Frank and Jack R. Nagelely, Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C. J., and SCHWARTZ, J., and VANN, HAROLD R. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The state appeals from an order granting the defendant's motion to suppress tape recordings of his conversations, which had been secured without an intercept warrant but in accordance with Sec. 934.03(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1977). The order itself accurately summarizes the controlling facts:
1. On December 6, 1978, law enforcement officers of the Dade County Public Safety Department acquired the consent of one Angelo Jordan to tape record phone calls and in-person conversations between Jordan and the defendant, Stanley H. Steinbrecher, a sergeant with the City of Miami Beach Police Department. The purpose of these records was to gain evidence of alleged criminal acts, to-wit: Bribery and Unlawful Compensation.
2. Phone conversations and person-to-person conversations between Jordan and the defendant were intercepted, after such consent, between December 6, 1978, and January 23, 1979, in an effort to detect said criminal acts.
3. No Intercept Warrant was obtained prior to the interception of the conversations.
4. The State has conceded that there was sufficient time to obtain an Intercept Warrant.
5. None of the intercepted conversations occurred in the residence of the defendant or touched the said residence.
I would affirm the order under review in all respects. In my view, the subject tape recordings were properly suppressed by the trial court because they represent the fruit of an unreasonable interception of a private conversation involving the defendant and the police in violation of the defendant's rights guaranteed by Article I,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Shaktman, 79-1339
...by Franco, and upon its authority we reverse. See also Jacobs v. State, 389 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Steinbrecher, 389 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Scott, Reversed. HUBBART, Judge (dissenting). I must respectfully dissent; I would affirm in all respects the trial c......
-
Bailey v. State, 80-235
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 636 (Fla.1980). See, Jacobs v. State, 389 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Steinbrecher, 389 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Shaktman, 389 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Trinidad v. State, 388 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA The claim that ......
-
Silber v. State, 79-2159
...DCA 1965); Jacobs v. State, 389 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Shaktman, 389 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Steinbrecher, 389 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Trinidad v. State, 388 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Franco v. State, 376 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Zamot v. S......