THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM EARLE, SR. A/K/A "BILL" EL GORDO, ALFREDO MOYA, HUMBERTO PEREZ, NELSON BACALLAO, ISMAEL FELIPE "PHIL" ARNAIZ AND JAIRO IBARRA, APPELLEES
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 appeals the suppression of wiretap evidence obtained by City of Miami police officers who were designated as special investigators of the State Attorney. The court reverses the suppression order, holding that even if the officers lacked proper official status, the defect is irrelevant where the applications were sufficient and interceptions occurred under supervision of properly-constituted state attorney investigators.
The suppression orders are reversed. Even assuming the officers were not properly authorized as special investigators, this technical defect is irrelevant to the sufficiency of the wiretap applications and does not affect the propriety of the officers' monitoring activities where the applications were adequate and the interceptions occurred under the supervision of undisputably duly-constituted state attorney investigators.
[1] A court's suppression of evidence obtained through wiretaps based solely on the technical authorization status of the applying officers is improper if the underlying appl…
[2] The participation of law enforcement officers in court-authorized wiretaps, even if their specific authorization status is later questioned, is permissible if their invol…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“it is clear that that legal conclusion is irrelevant to the sufficiency of the underlying applications for the orders”
Establishes that even if officers lacked proper status, this does not affect the adequacy of the wiretap applications themselves
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCity of Miami police officers applied for and obtained court-authorized wiretap orders identifying themselves as sworn investigators of the State Atto…
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, Chief Judge.
The lower court suppressed the evidence obtained through a series of court-authoriz ed wiretaps on the sole ground that City of Miami police officers who applied for the orders and who participated in the interceptions were, for a variety of highly-technical reasons relating to their bonds and oaths, not properly authorized special investigators of the Dade County State Attorney as stated in their affidavits1 and designated in the orders as those authorized to conduct the taps.2 Even assuming without deciding, however, that the determination that the officers did not occupy that position was correct, it is clear that that legal conclusion is irrelevant to the sufficiency of the underlying applications for the orders. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Sections 934.09(1)(a), 934.02(6), Florida Statutes (1981). Since the participation of the City officers both was previously made known to the judges who issued the orders and actually took place under the supervision of persons who were undisputably duly-constituted state attorney’s investigators, it is likewise the case, as established by United States v. Lyons, 507 F.Supp. 551 (D.Md.1981), aff’d, 695 F. 2d 802 (4th Cir.1982), which we approve and follow, that the officers’ supposed lack of that official status does not affect the propriety of their activities in monitoring the conversations themselves. See Secs. 934.09(4)(d); 934.02(10), Fla.Stat. The orders of suppression under review are therefore reversed and the causes remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed.
. The following is a typical statement to this effect:
Your co-Affiants [include]
(1) Charles W. Reynolds, a police officer for approximately thirteen (13) years with the City of Miami Police Department, Miami, Dade County, Florida, and a sworn Investigator of the Office of the State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida.
. A representative order provided as follows: [T]he State Attorney ... and her sworn Investigators thereof, are authorized to intercept wire ... communications of Alfred "Alfredo” Moya, Ismael Felipe "Phil” Arnaiz, and other persons ..., which occur on telephone number (305) 634-2361 and which is ... located at 2500 Northwest 13th Street, Apartment 121, Miami, Dade County, Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978)
- United States v. Lyons, 695 F.2d 802 (4th Cir. 1982)