HORACE PITTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Florida affirmed conviction for possession of firearm by convicted felon, holding that tape recordings of conversations with an informant wearing a body bug were properly admitted under Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(e) without a warrant.
Tape recordings of conversations obtained with the prior consent of a participant (an informant wearing a body bug) are admissible under Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(e) without a warrant.
[1] Tape recordings of conversations obtained with the prior consent of a participant-informant are admissible under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Law enforcement obtained tape recordings of conversations between appellant a…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consent To Interception cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence entered upon a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We affirm the order appealed.
Among other contentions, appellant argues that tape recordings of appellant’s conversation with an informant should not have been admitted into evidence. The tape recordings were of conversation which occurred in a restaurant, in appellant’s truck, and at an outdoor rural setting. The tape recordings were obtained under the direction of law enforcement personnel, to obtain evidence of criminal activity, and with the prior consent of a participant to the conversation (the informant, who wore a “body bug”) who testified at the trial. Section 934.03(2)(e), Florida Statutes, thus authorized the warrantless interception, by tape, of the subject conversations, and the tapes were properly admitted into evidence. See State v. Shaktman, 389 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); cert. denied, 397 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1981); Jacobs v. State, 389 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); cert. denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1981); State v. Scott, 385 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The present case is unlike State v. Sarmiento, 397 So. 2d 643, 1981 F.L.W. 85 (Fla. 1981), petition for rehearing filed January 29, 1981, in that Sarmiento involved testimony by persons not a party to the conversation which occurred in the home of Sarmiento.
The order appealed is affirmed.
SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morningstar v. State, 405 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…ns between the defendants and an investigator, obtained outside their homes and without a warrant, was upheld. In addition, the First District Court of Appeal has recently affirmed a conviction obtained under similar circumstances, Pittman v. State, 397 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and in so doing has noted the Supreme Court’s denial of certio-rari in three other cases in which the Third District’s opinion in Sarmiento was interpreted quite narrowly. The First District has also refused to apply Sarmiento t…
-
Ruiz v. State, 416 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…Fla.Sup.Ct. No. 61,-488, (Sarmiento not applicable to conversations in defendant’s place of business); Pad-gett v. State, 404 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (motel room not functional equivalent of home for purposes of Sarmiento); Pittman v. State, 397 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (Sarmiento not controlling when conversations took place in a restaurant, an outdoor rural setting and defendant’s truck). While questions regarding the scope of Sarmiento remain,4 the plain language in the case and the emphasis…
-
Cooke v. State, 404 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Pittman v. State, 397 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., THOMPSON, J., and LILES, WOODIE A. (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Sarmiento, 397 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1981)
- Bart Jacobs v. State, 389 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Shaktman, 389 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Scott, 385 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)