THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SETH EBER AND ROBERT RIZZIERI, APPELLEES; THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. CHARLES DELMONICO, APPELLEE; THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. SHELDON SPECTOR, APPELLEE; THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. RICHARD SAN ROMAN, APPELLEE; THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. BURTON WOLCOFF, 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 trial court orders suppressing evidence obtained through court-authorized electronic surveillance in five consolidated cases. The court affirmed the suppression as to four defendants who were aggrieved parties, but reversed as to Richard San Roman, who lacked standing to challenge the wiretap because he was neither a party to the intercepted communications nor the target of the interception.
The court affirmed the suppression order as to all defendants except San Roman. San Roman lacks standing to challenge the wiretap because he is not an aggrieved person under Section 934.02(9), Florida Statutes—he was neither a party to the intercepted communications nor directed against by the interception. The fact that his arrest warrant was based on information derived from the unlawful wiretap does not confer standing to contest the wiretap itself.
[1] A person is an aggrieved person with standing to challenge electronic surveillance only if they were a party to an intercepted communication or the target of the intercep…
[2] A defendant arrested pursuant to a search warrant, the probable cause for which was derived from an unlawful wiretap, does not automatically gain standing to contest the…
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“Unlike the other defendants, San Roman is not an aggrieved person as that term is defined in Section 934.02(9), Florida Statutes (1981), and has no standing to complain of infringements on the constitutional rights of others.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for standing to challenge wiretaps—only aggrieved persons may do so.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted consolidated motions to suppress evidence gathered through court-authorized electronic surveillance. The defendants challenged…
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 Probable Cause For Search Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court’s order granting the defendants’ consolidated motions to suppress evidence gathered by court authorized electronic surveillance, being amply supported by substantial competent evidence and controlling case law, is affirmed as to all defendants except Richard San Roman. Unlike the other defendants, San Roman is not an aggrieved person as that term is defined in Section 934.02(9), Florida Statutes (1981),1 and has no standing to complain of infringements on the constitutional rights of others. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Sarno v. State, 424 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 434 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1983); State v. Ferguson, 411 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Although the trial court apparently — and correctly — concluded that San Roman was neither a party to any unlawfully intercepted wire or oral communication nor a person against whom such interception was directed, it nevertheless suppressed the evidence as to San Roman on the theory that because he was “arrested pursuant to a search warrant, which, in turn, grounded its probable cause on information gained from the [unlawful] wiretap, [he] had standing to contest the wiretap order.” The case relied upon by the trial court for its ruling, Scheider v. State, 389 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 779 (Fla.1981), which involved defendants whose telephone conversations were intercepted during the tap in question, simply does not support the trial court’s decision in this regard.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
. Section 934.02(9) reads:
" ‘Aggrieved person’ means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mozo v. State, 632 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…had to be either a party to the conversations or one whose premises served as the site of the surveillance which resulted in the interception. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); see also State v. Eber, 502 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA) (where defendant was not an “aggrieved person,” defined in section 934.02(9) as one “who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed,” he lacked standing…
-
Brugmann v. The State of Fla. & Sean Casey, 117 So. 3d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…se persons whose conversations were intercepted or whose premises were the site of electronic surveillance.”). Consequently, the court found that Albano lacked standing to seek suppression of the evidence. Id. Likewise, this Court in State v. Eber, 502 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), held that although Richard San Roman was arrested based on information obtained from an unlawful wiretap, because he was not a party to the unlawfully intercepted communication, San Roman was not an “aggrieved party” under sectio…
Authorities Cited
- Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1969)
- Leal v. State, 424 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- State v. Ferguson, 411 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Scheider v. State, 389 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)