LARRY LELAND MOORE, APPELLANT,

v.

BONITA LEE MOORE, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Malone v. State, 944 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
  …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 934.03(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2002); Commerford v. State, 728 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Barr v. State, 659 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), review denied, 667 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1996); Franco v. State, 376 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert, denied, 386 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1980).…
• State v. Stout, 693 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
  …the use of a pen register device. Shaktman did not discuss whether article I, section 23 applied to telephone conversations taped with the consent of one of the parties as provided in section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1993). In Barr v. State, 659 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), rev. denied, 667 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1996), the Fifth District Court of Appeal, on facts similar to those before us, concluded: [Tjhat the trial court properly admitted the audiotape of a telephone conversation Barr held with his d…
• State v. Russell, 814 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
  …ne, there would be nothing amiss about it pursuant to section 934.03(2)(c), because it was taped with the consent of one party and for the purpose of gathering evidence about a crime. State v. Sobel, 743 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Barr v. State, 659 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); State v. Stout, 693 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Nor do we think Russell had any reasonable subjective expectation of privacy for his in-prison conversation, or that there is a societal recognition that such an expectation i…

Authorities Cited

• Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
• Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)