Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-786,78-786 |
| Parties | James WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Don S. Cohn of Engel, Aronson, Fried & Cohn, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant James Wilson appeals the judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty of conspiracy to deliver cocaine. Wilson was charged by information together with co-defendant Eddie B. Williams. The primary basis for the charge was a telephone conversation between Wilson and Williams on March 29, 1977 intercepted pursuant to a court-authorized wiretap.
The facts are as follows: On March 16, 1977, the state attorney filed an application and supporting affidavit requesting court authorization for wiretaps on two telephones listed to Eddie Williams on Leisurewood Place: 971-8779 (apartment 204) and 977-1064 (apartment 203). The 40-page affidavit described an ongoing investigation by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department into the distribution of controlled substances and included a detailed description of the drug operation as it was then known to the affiant. This information was obtained principally from two confidential informants; toll records from the telephone company and information from other law enforcement agencies. 1 The circuit judge granted the application for order on March 16, 1977. At about this time it came to the attention of law enforcement officials that the primary suspect, Eddie Williams, had moved to a new apartment complex on Sunnyside Drive and had requested a new unlisted telephone number. The new number, 988-0979, was to be in service effective March 22. On March 21, the state attorney filed a document entitled Supplement and Amendment to Affidavit for Application, requesting a wiretap authorization on the new telephone. The supplement specifically adopted and incorporated by reference the original application for order of March 16 and its accompanying affidavit. The supplement further set out summaries of five drug-related telephone conversations intercepted pursuant to the March 16 order. The conversations were conducted from telephones at the old address on Leisurewood Place. 2 Additional information which had been gained through conventional surveillance techniques was set out. The thrust of this information was that several of the persons with whom Williams had associated at his old address were now frequenting the new apartment. 3
The circuit judge granted the second application on March 21 and authorized a wiretap on the new phone line. On April 8th, the state attorney filed an application for a 20-day extension of the wiretap order, specifically incorporating the previous two applications and additionally setting out summaries of drug-related telephone conversations intercepted pursuant to the March 21st order. The application for extension contained a complete statement of other investigative techniques employed and the futility of pursuing further conventional methods. 4
Appellant Wilson argues that the supplement and amendment to the original affidavit is insufficient on its face and that the insufficiencies cannot be cured by "tacking" on the original valid affidavit by reference. Appellant's argument is correct inasmuch as the supplement and amendment fails to comply with the procedural requirements set out in Section 934.09(1)(c), Fla.Stat., and 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c). The State argues that the supplement is sufficient because Eddie Williams moved to a new address, the interaction among the same individuals showed that the same criminal activities were continuing at a different situs, and probable cause for the intercept continued with the amendment.
Our standard of review for the procedures under Chapter 934, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. § 2518 is a strict one. We are guided by several cases which discuss the dangers inherent in this extraordinary investigative technique. U. S. District Judge McMillan voiced the apprehension of the courts in U. S. v. Brown, (D.N.C.1972), 351 F.Supp. 38:
Wiretapping, of dubious constitutionality at best, should be sanctioned if at all only under the strictest view of the strict procedures laid down by a careful Congress.
Id. at 41. State v. Siegel, 266 Md. 256, 292 A.2d 86 (1972), Aff'd, 13 Md.App. 444, 285 A.2d 671 (1971); Calhoun v. State, 34 Md.App. 365, 367 A.2d 40 (1977).
As we noted above, there is no question but that the original affidavit and application are sufficient in all respects. The problem we must resolve occurs in the supplement and amendment to the application. Section 934.09(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires "A full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous." 5 The only reference to conventional investigative procedures in the supplement and amendment is a statement in paragraph 8 that certain persons and vehicles were observed at Williams' new apartment complex. We find no reference at all to the success or failure of the surveillance techniques employed at the new location, nor is there any mention of reasons for abandoning the routine methods of surveillance in favor of a wiretap. In fact, the only specific reason set out as probable cause for an additional wiretap is a statement in paragraph 7 that Eddie Williams "requested that his phone service be transferred . . . to 229 Sunnyside Road, apartment 6. . . ."
Appellant refers us to Calhoun v. State, supra. The question in that case, as in this one, is whether "an affidavit (can) pass muster by piggy-backing a valid affidavit that was used in support of an application to tap another phone at a different location?" Calhoun, at 42. The Calhoun facts reveal that the various wiretap applications were part of a continuing investigation into a gambling operation. The defective affidavit requested a wiretap on a telephone number at a different location which had been dialed from the previously tapped telephone for wagering purposes. The original affidavit made no reference to the telephone number or the address subsequently used in the second application. Moreover, the affidavit in support of the second application did not contain a statement of whether conventional surveillance techniques had been employed or, if employed, why they had failed. The argument might have been made that the criminal activity was continuing and that merely the situs had changed. The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the order based on the subject affidavit was invalid because it permitted "a deviation from the 'prescribed path' of the statute." Calhoun at 46. We endorse the reasoning and results of Calhoun and hold that in the instant case the State did not comply with the state and federal requirement as outlined above. Therefore, the supplement and amendment to the original valid affidavit is invalid and the trial court was in error in denying appellant's motion to suppress.
Our next consideration, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bascaro
...that incorporated by reference documents from the original application. Bagley v. State, 397 So.2d 1036 (Fla.App.1981); Wilson v. State, 377 So.2d 237 (Fla.App.1979). In both Wilson and Bagley, the original wiretap applications submitted by the state were sufficient in all respects and were......
-
U.S. v. Glinton
...wiretap statutes 7 must be strictly construed. See Bagley v. State, 397 So.2d 1036, 1038 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Wilson v. State, 377 So.2d 237, 240 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979). 8 However, even under this standard, we find task force agents lawfully complied with the requirements set out under F......
-
U.S. v. Dennis
...appear unlikely to succeed if tried." 2 Appellants point to Bagley v. State, 397 So.2d 1036 (Fla.App.1981), and Wilson v. State, 377 So.2d 237 (Fla.App.1979), which held amended applications to be insufficient as a matter of state law when they merely incorporated information contained in e......
-
U.S. v. Domme
...the previous application by reference. 4 Appellants point to Bagley v. State, 397 So.2d 1036 (Fla.App.1981), and Wilson v. State, 377 So.2d 237 (Fla.App.1979), which held amended applications to be insufficient as a matter of state law when they merely incorporated information contained in ......