CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the City of Riviera Beach's petition to quash a circuit court order requiring the city to comply with an investigative subpoena from the State Attorney's office seeking the names of confidential informants. The court held that the State Attorney is entitled to obtain this information under Florida law, and no statutory or common law privilege shields it from disclosure between law enforcement agencies.
The State Attorney is entitled to obtain the names of confidential informants under Florida Statute section 27.04, and no statutory or common law privilege shields the information from disclosure between law enforcement agencies. Confidential informants lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in shielding their identity from the State Attorney's office, and the transfer of information from one law enforcement agency to another does not implicate confidential informant privilege or constitutional privacy rights.
[1] A state attorney is entitled to obtain information, including the names of confidential informants, through an investigative subpoena under section 27.04, Florida Statute…
[2] The privilege protecting the identity of confidential informants from disclosure to criminal defendants does not apply to a disclosure from one law enforcement agency to…
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 office of the state attorney is entitled to obtain the disputed information under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (2010).”
Establishes the statutory basis for the State Attorney's authority to obtain confidential informant information from another law enforcement agency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State Attorney's office issued an investigative subpoena to the City of Riviera Beach requiring the city to provide the names of confidential info…
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 Investigative Subpoena cases and more on FLexlaw
We deny the City of Riviera Beach’s petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash an order of the circuit court directing it to comply with an investigative subpoena of the office of the state attorney. Among other things, the subpoena would require the city to provide the names of confidential informants used by the city for a one year period. The office of the state attorney is entitled to obtain the disputed information under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (2010). See State v. Investigation, 802 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Imparato v. Spicola, 238 So.2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Thus, there is no departure from the essential requirements of law.
No statutory or common law privilege limits the state attorney’s ability to obtain the information. We reject the City’s contention that a privilege surrounding confidential informants is applicable here. Both Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(g)(2), involve the issue of the “Government’s privilege to withhold from disclosure” to criminal defendants “the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers.” Neither Ro-viaro nor rule 3.220(g)(2) involves a disclosure from one law enforcement agency to another pursuant to an investigative subpoena. The issue here is not public disclosure nor the release of information to a person or entity that could interfere with an ongoing investigation, but the transfer of information from one law enforcement agency to another.
*200We also reject the City’s contention that the investigative subpoena implicates Florida’s right of privacy. See Fla. Const., Art. I, § 28. Before Florida’s right to privacy attaches, “a reasonable expectation of privacy must exist.” Winfield v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So.2d 544, 547 (Fla.1985). Confidential informants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in shielding their identity from the state attorney’s office, the law enforcement agency that would be in charge of the prosecution should the information provided by an informant lead to criminal charges. Both the state attorney’s office and the City are bound to maintain the confidentiality of the records. See § 914.28, Fla. Stat. (2010).
HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957)
- Winfield v. Division OF Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1985)
- Imparato v. Spicola, 238 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Dieter Drewing v. Drewing, 802 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)