THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERICO RIVERO, 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.
The State appealed a trial court order suppressing tape-recorded statements made by the defendant to a police informant. The appellate court reversed, holding that the informant was acting under police direction when recording the conversation, even though he deviated from the specific timing instructions given by the detective.
The record did not support the trial court's suppression order. The detective testified that he directed the informant to record any conversations with the defendant, and the informant's deviation regarding timing did not take him outside the scope of general police direction.
[1] A trial court's suppression order will be reversed when the record does not support the conclusion that an informant was acting outside the direction of police authority.
[2] An informant's recording of a conversation is admissible when the informant is generally instructed by police to record any conversations with the target.
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“the basic issue is whether the record supports the trial court's conclusion that the informant was acting outside the direction of police authority when he taped this particular conversation”
Establishes the central legal question on appeal regarding the scope of police direction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice conducted surveillance of defendant Rivero using an informant who agreed to record conversations. The detective instructed the informant to rec…
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 Chain Of Command cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the State of Florida, appeals an order suppressing tape recorded statements. We reverse.
Appellee, Federico Rivero (the “defendant”), was under surveillance by the police. An informant who worked with the defendant agreed with the police to tape record any conversations that he had with the defendant. In two previous controlled meetings between the informant and the defendant, the police wired the informant and monitored their conversations.
On one occasion, the informant called the detective in charge of the operation and told him that he wanted to work at an earlier time than they previously arranged. The detective was unavailable at that particular time, and the detective instructed the informant to wait until later. The informant, contrary to the detective’s instruction, went in early anyway. The informant saw the defendant at work and recorded their conversation with the tape recorder provided by the police.
Here, the basic issue is whether the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the informant was acting outside the direction of police authority when he taped this particular conversation. See State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981). After combing the record, we determine that the record does not support the trial court’s decision to grant the motion to suppress.
At the suppression hearing, the detective testified that the informant was acting under the detective’s direction the entire week of the operation and “that if [the informant] ever had any conversations from that point on with Mr. Rivero, to make sure he recorded the conversations.” On redirect, the detective further clarified his directions to the informant by stating “any time that [the informant] encountered Mr. Rivero, if they were going to have a conversation, I wanted it recorded.”
Based upon the entire record, there is no basis to conclude that the informant was acting outside the direction of the police. Accordingly, we reverse the suppression order and remand for further proceedings con sistent with this opinion. See State v. Smith, 529 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Riocabo, 372 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed, 378 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1979).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Riocabo, 372 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Gerner v. Gerner, 529 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Smith, 529 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)