State v. Walls
Decision Date | 02 March 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 50822,50822 |
Citation | 356 So.2d 294 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Harold WALLS and Stanley Gerstenfeld, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Marsha G. Madorsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., David H. Bludworth, State's Atty., and John Scarola, Asst. State's Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
J. Brian Brennan of Brennan, Brown & Avery, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We have for review on petition for writ of certiorari granted an interlocutory order of the trial court upholding the constitutional validity of Sections 934.02(2), 934.03 and 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Without respondents', defendants below, prior consent to the electronic interception, Francis Antel, the alleged victim of extortionary threats, electronically recorded a conversation which occurred in his home on February 19, 1975, between himself and the respondents. The interception was not made by a law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of a law enforcement officer. Antel alleged and would testify that the conversation included extortionary threats and would personally testify to the nature of those threats at trial.
The defendants are charged by information with the crime of extortion. The State seeks to introduce as evidence at trial the electronic recording of the alleged extortioning threats to corroborate the victim's testimony. The defendants seek to suppress the electronic recording under the provisions of Chapter 934, Florida Statutes, Chapter 74-249, Laws of Florida.
In his amended order on rehearing, the trial judge concluded that an extortionary threat delivered personally to the victim in the victim's home is an "oral communication" as defined in Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes, that this electronic recording without consent of all the parties to the communication was an illegal interception prohibited by Section 943.03, Florida Statutes, and that use of the electronic recording as evidence is prohibited by Section 934.06, Florida Statutes. Granting the motion to suppress, the trial judge expressly ruled Sections 934.02(2), 934.03 and 934.06 constitutional.
Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (1975), provides:
" 'Oral communication' means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting."
Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1975), provides in part:
Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), provides:
"Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter."
We agree with the trial court that an extortionary threat delivered personally to the victim in the victim's home is an "oral communication" within the definition of Section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes (1975); that pursuant to Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1975), the electronic recording of such "oral communication" without the consent of all parties to the communication was prohibited; and that Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), expressly prohibits the use of such electronic recording as evidence. The subject electronic recording did not fall within any of the situations permitting interception delineated in Section 934.03(2), Florida Statutes (1975). Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), contains no exception to the prohibition against use of the illegally intercepted wire or oral communication as evidence.
Appellant argues that such electronic recording may not constitutionally be suppressed from evidence and that Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1975), is unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to this cause. Appellant in effect requests this Court to create an exception to Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), and Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1975).
The language of the statutes in question is clear and unambiguous, and no exception for the situation we have before us is provided. This Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature and create an exception which would encompass the instant circumstances. State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973); State ex rel. Green v. City of Pensacola, 126 So.2d 566 (Fla.1961). Cf. Wagner v. Botts, 88...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Otto
...its judgment for that of the Legislature and create an exception which would encompass the instant circumstances." (State v. Walls, supra, 356 So.2d at p. 296.) In a related argument, the Attorney General urges that section 2515 be construed as coextensive with the Federal Fourth Amendment ......
-
State v. Tsavaris
...934. The district court affirmed this ruling only because it felt compelled to do so in light of this Court's decision in State v. Walls, 356 So.2d 294 (Fla.1978). Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1979), Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents ......
-
State v. Tsavaris
...280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973). We believe the supreme court has foreclosed our reconsideration of the question by its holding in State v. Walls, 356 So.2d 294 (Fla.1978). In that case a victim of extortion secretly recorded a conversation which occurred in his home between himself and the allege......
-
Brugmann v. State
...of this chapter.Section 934.03 has been held to prohibit the surreptitious recording of face-to-face communications. State v. Walls, 356 So. 2d 294, 296 (Fla. 1978) ("an extortionary threat delivered personally to the victim in the victim's home is an 'oral communication' ... [and] pursuant......