STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
RICHARD C. LOCKMAN, RESPONDENT
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's appellate court reviewed a trial court's suppression of wiretap evidence in a criminal prosecution for the unlawful interception itself. The court held that an implied exception to Florida's wiretap statute permits use of intercepted communications as evidence in prosecutions for violations of the interception statute itself, reversing the trial court's blanket suppression order.
The court held that an exception must be read into the statute to permit prosecution for criminal interception. The statute's absolute prohibition cannot be applied when the case involves prosecution for the illegal interception itself, as this would create an absurd result that would make such prosecutions impossible.
[1] Testimony of a third person who overhears a confidential communication between spouses is admissible.
[2] The unauthorized interception and use of wire or oral communications is prohibited by statute.
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 disagree and hold that an exception must be read into the statute in order to permit prosecution for its violation. Otherwise only an absurd result is obtained.”
Establishes the court's holding that an implied exception exists to the absolute suppression rule when prosecuting for the crime of unlawful interception itself.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant (Lockman) was charged with criminal interception of an oral conversation under Florida law, specifically for wrongfully taping a convers…
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 Suppression Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This matter is before the court upon the petition of the state to have this court review by certiorari the trial court’s order suppressing evidence.
Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications.— Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. The trial judge determined that because the legislature provided no exception to the foregoing prohibition that under no circumstances could the tape be used in court— even in a case, as here, where the prosecution is for the criminal interception itself. We disagree and hold that an exception must be read into the statute in order to permit prosecution for its violation. Otherwise only an absurd result is obtained. We cannot disagree with the analogy the attorney general draws saying “this is like a defense of intoxication to a driving under the influence charge.”
Respondent is charged with criminal interception of an oral conversation. It is alleged he wrongfully taped a conversation and wrongfully disclosed the contents of the tape to third persons. Ch. 934, Fla. Stat. (1985). He obtained an order suppressing the tapes because it is unlawful to place in evidence at trial the wrongfully intercepted tapes. Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1985) says:
We grant the writ and quash the order of suppression.
WRIT GRANTED.
COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur.