DIEGO TRINIDAD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting testimony from police officers who overheard drug-related conversations, even without an intercept warrant.
The defendant contended that testimony from officers overhearing drug-related conversations should have been suppressed because no intercept warrant w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Relying on Sarmiento v. State, 371 So. 2d 1047 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), cert. granted and pending, Fla.Sup.Ct., Case no. 57,173, the appellant-defendant contends that the trial judge should have suppressed the testimony of police officers who overheard his drug-related conversations with an undercover officer equipped with a “body bug” for which an intercept warrant had not been obtained. Even assuming the continuing viability of Sarmiento as to its own facts, see contra, State v. Scott, 385 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), we find that the case is closer to and is controlled instead by Franco v. State, 376 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 636 (Fla.1980). This is so because the conversation in question did not take place in the defendant’s home, but in the “residence” of a codefendant. See also, Preces v. State, 378 So. 2d 77 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).
Furthermore, the admission of the testimony of the officers who were outside the house could have been no more than harmless error, since it merely corroborated that of the undercover man, who himself related his transaction with the defendant. §§ 59.-041, 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1979). In this respect, too, the case is dissimilar to Sarmien-to. Unlike the undercover policeman involved in that case, the credibility and interest of the officer who testified in this one was not challenged below.
Affirmed.1
. We reached the same conclusion in a recent case involving virtually identical facts and contentions. Turnbull v. State, 386 So. 2d 42 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sarmiento, 397 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1981)…t 1169-70. Judge Hubbart, who authored Sarmiento, dissented from Franco on the basis that the recording was a prohibited invasion of Franco’s rights under article I, section 12, Florida Constitution. In its subsequent decision of Trinidad v. State, 388 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the Third District questioned the viability of its decision in Sarmiento in light of State v. Scott. I find that Sarmiento’s rights under article I, section 12, Florida Constitution, and the fourth amendment to the United States…
-
Bart Jacobs v. State, 389 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…State, 317 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Affirmed. . Sentence on the possession charge was suspended. . See also, State v. Steinbrecher, 389 So. 2d 1045 (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 1980).…
-
Silber v. State, 398 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…Cir. 1976); Gomien v. State, 172 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d 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. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sarmiento v. State, 371 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Kellogg v. Found, 376 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Franco v. State, 376 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Scott, 385 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Turnbull v. State, 386 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Preces v. State, 378 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)