BARTON RAMPIL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; AND ARTHUR SHERRY, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; AND EDWARD GONZALEZ, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; AND SALVATORE COMPARATO, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; AND ROGER J. SUDERS, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; AND ANGELO L. ORTIZ, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; AND MARGARITA GONZALEZ, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; AND MOISES RAYMOND GONZALEZ, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; AND MYRRA CARRASCO, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; AND MYRRA CARRASCO, 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.
Multiple appellants convicted of crimes challenged the validity of a wiretap conducted by a St. Petersburg detective who also held the position of deputy sheriff. The court affirmed all convictions, holding that the detective's dual positions were permissible because the deputy sheriff position was unpaid and thus did not violate Florida's constitutional prohibition on dual office holding.
The court held that Detective Martin was not outside his jurisdiction in conducting the wiretap because his deputy sheriff status extended his authority. The dual office holding was permissible under the Florida Constitution because Martin was not paid for his deputy sheriff position, distinguishing the case from constitutional prohibitions on dual office holding that apply to paid positions.
[1] A wiretap conducted by a police officer who is also a deputy sheriff is not outside the officer's jurisdiction.
[2] Holding a municipal police officer position and a deputy sheriff position simultaneously does not violate the Florida Constitution's prohibition against dual office holdi…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that, this being the case, Martin was not outside his jurisdiction in conducting the wiretap.”
Establishes that the detective's dual status as deputy sheriff extended his jurisdictional authority to conduct the wiretap in Largo.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSt. Petersburg police conducted a wiretap on the telephones of three of the appellants, with the operation taking place in Largo. The lead investigati…
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 Jurisdiction Of Law Enforcement Officers cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
We affirm the judgments and sentences on each and every count against each appellant, all of the issues raised by appellants being without merit.
Only one subissue merits discussion. Appellants challenge the validity of a wiretap on the telephone of three of appellants on several grounds, one of which is that the St. Petersburg police, who conducted the wiretap, were acting beyond their jurisdiction, since the tap was operated in Largo.
However, the lead investigative officer involved, St. Petersburg Detective Martin, testified without contradiction that he was also a deputy sheriff. We hold that, this being the case, Martin was not outside his jurisdiction in conducting the wiretap.
Appellants argue, however, that if Detective Martin was acting as both a St. Petersburg police officer and a deputy sheriff, he was in violation of Article II, Section 5(a), Florida Constitution (1968), which prohibits dual office holding. It is true that the term “office” as used in article II, section 5(a), see State ex rel. Holloway v. Sheats, 78 Fla. 583, 83 So. 508 (Fla.1919), has been applied to both municipal police officers, Curry v. Hammond, 154 Fla. 63,16 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1944), and deputy sheriffs, Blackburn v. Brorein, 70 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1945); Johnson v. Wilson, 336 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Nevertheless, we conclude that the “dual office holding” here is permissible under Vinales v. State, 394 So. 2d 993 (Fla.1981). There the issue involved Miami police officers who received temporary unpaid appointments as state attorney investigators, and our supreme court relied on both the temporary nature of the investigator appointments and the fact that these latter positions were unpaid to support its holding that it was not improper for a person to hold both positions. Here the dual appointment was apparently not tern- porary. This distinction notwithstanding, we believe that inasmuch as Martin was not paid for acting in the capacity of a deputy sheriff, he was not in violation of Article II, Section 5(a) of the Florida Constitution.
Accordingly, appellants’ judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED.
OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Campbell, 427 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…. The trial court granted the motion to suppress on the basis of its conclusion that the officers’ appointments as special deputies were “merely a subterfuge in which to allow the City of Tampa to go into the County.” We disagree. Rampil v. State, 422 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), is controlling here. There we held that a St. Petersburg police officer who conducted a wiretap in a narcotics investigation in Largo was not outside his jurisdiction when the evidence established without contradiction that he wa…
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. v. Sheats, 78 Fla. 583 (Fla. 1919)
- Blackburn v. Brorein, 70 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1954)
- Johnson v. Wilson, 336 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Curry v. Hammond, 154 Fla. 63 (Fla. 1944)
- Vinales v. State, 394 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1981)