THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DENNIS L. RIDENOUR, 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 appealed a trial court's suppression of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance (body bug) conducted by an undercover officer in the defendant's home. The appellate court reversed, holding that constitutional amendments to Florida's Article I, Section 12 eliminated the more protective standard established in State v. Sarmiento and aligned Florida law with the more permissive federal Fourth Amendment standard.
The court held that State v. Sarmiento no longer represents Florida law because Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution was amended to require that it be construed in conformity with the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Since no U.S. Supreme Court decisions support Sarmiento's prohibition and conflicting U.S. Supreme Court decisions exist (United States v. White and Lopez v. United States), Sarmiento is no longer valid law.
[1] Electronic surveillance conducted by an undercover police officer equipped with a body bug, with the consent of the officer, is permissible under the Fourth Amendment to…
[2] Amendments to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution mandate that the state's search and seizure rights be construed in conformity with the Fourth Amendment as…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 Sarmiento does not survive these amendments to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution inasmuch as there are no United States Supreme Court decisions holding the same as Sarmiento; indeed, there are United States Supreme Court decisions in conflict with Sarmiento.”
The court's central holding that the prior Florida precedent (Sarmiento) is no longer valid law due to constitutional amendments requiring alignment with federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn undercover police officer equipped with a body bug conducted electronic surveillance of conversations between the defendant and the officer in the …
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 Florida Constitution Article I, Section 12 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the state from an order suppressing the fruits of an electronic surveillance of certain conversations of the defendant in his home conducted by an undercover police officer equipped with a “body bug” with the officer’s consent. The defendant attacked the surveillance in his motion to suppress as having been unconstitutionally conducted under Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Sarmiento, 397 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1981). The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress. We reverse.
Subsequent to the Sarmiento decision, Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution was amended to provide that the right secured thereby “shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court,” and that “[ajrticles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.” We hold that Sarmiento does not survive these amendments to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution inasmuch as there are no United States Supreme Court decisions holding the same as Sarmiento; indeed, there are United States Supreme Court decisions in conflict with Sarmiento. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971); Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462 (1963).
This being so, Sar-miento is no longer the law of Florida and was erroneously relied on by the trial court as authority to suppress the fruits of the subject electronic surveillance.
Moreover, it is plain that the amendments to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution are applicable to this case because the subject electronic surveillance took place after January 3, 1983, the effective date of said amendments. See State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1983).
The order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
HUBBART, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion and judgment of the court. I write separately, however, to express my sincere regret at the passage of the recent amendments to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, inasmuch as they amount, in effect, to a virtual repeal of the entire state constitutional right. By these amendments, Florida no longer has a separately protected constitutional right on search and seizure; it is now inexorably linked to the Fourth Amendment and has no independent existence apart from the Fourth Amendment. I doubt whether the voters realized that they were, in effect, repealing Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution when they overwhelmingly approved the recent amendments in the November 1982 elections, but that is exactly what they did. Perhaps, with the passage of time, we will learn what a mistake that decision was and will act to restore Article I, Section 12 to its rightful place in the Florida Constitution. Until then, I think it clear that Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution is a dead letter and that decisions such as State v. Sarmiento, 397 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1981), interpreting this constitutional provision to give our citizens greater rights than that guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, are, most regretably, relics of the past.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bernie, 472 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…reasons. First, the search of the Bernies’ residence took place after January 4, 1988, the date the amendment became effective. See State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1983); State v. Hume, 463 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); State v. Ridenour, 453 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA (1984). Second, the amendment enunciates that Florida’s exclusionary rule now is one which is tied to the Fourth Amendment as construed by the United States Supreme Court. Our supreme court explained the change effected by the electors…
-
State v. Perez-Garcia, 917 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…s for making the stop.”). In sum, an officer’s state of mind, motivation, or subjective intent plays no role in the ordinary probable cause analysis under the Fourth Amendment or Art. I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution. See State v. Ridenour, 453 So. 2d 193, 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)(noting the express requirement in Article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution that it “shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supre…
-
State v. Hume, 463 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…reme Court.1 This was error. The amendment to Article I, Section 12, applies because the electronic surveillance here occurred after January 3, 1983, the amendment’s effective date. State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1983); State v. Ridenour, 453 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Under United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971), reh. den., 402 U.S. 990, 91 S.Ct. 1643, 29 L.Ed.2d 156 (1971), the surreptitious interception of conversations between a criminal defendant and an…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1963)
- United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1971)
- State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. Sarmiento, 397 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1981)