STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD EDWARD ALPHONSE ET AL., APPELLEES
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 appeal of suppression orders was properly denied because the wiretap affidavit lacked sufficient probable cause under Rodriguez v. State, and the search warrant predicated on the illegal wiretap fruits was properly suppressed.
A search warrant predicated on an affidavit relying on fruits of an illegal wiretap must be suppressed when the original wiretap order lacked sufficient probable cause.
[1] A search warrant predicated upon an affidavit relying on fruits of illegally intercepted wire communications must be suppressed as derivative evidence.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state sought to intercept wire communications and obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit relying on the intercepted communications.…
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 Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the briefs and oral argument and after review of the record on appeal we are of the opinion that the state has failed to demonstrate reversible error; the trial court properly granted defendants’ motions to suppress the contents of intercepted wire communications and defendants’ motion to suppress evidence secured by a search warrant predicated upon the fruits of such intercepted communications. In particular, the original affidavit for the wire tap order did not reflect the presence of sufficient probable cause within the requirements of Rodriguez v. State, Fla.1974, 297 So. 2d 15, i. e. that the facility from which the communications were to be intercepted was being used or about to be used in connection with the commission of an offense enumerated in section 934.07, F.S. It follows therefore that the evidence secured pursuant to the search warrant was properly suppressed inasmuch-as such search warrant was predicated upon an affidavit which relied upon the fruits of the intercepted communications. Hamelmann v. State, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 394; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed. 2d 441 (1963).
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.R. and I.R. v. State, 385 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ppellant handed his brother the metal lock just before the brother struck the fatal bow.2 The testimony of a single witness, even if uncorroborated and contradicted by other State witnesses, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Singleton v. State, 315 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Bruton v. State, 220 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Affirmed. . Had the court in Majors held that the evidence was insufficient to prove Majors’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Majors would have been entitled to the entry of a…
-
Jackson v. State, 636 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…uing the search warrant against Jackson’s automobile, without regard to the good faith exception of Leon. Garcia, 547 So. 2d at 630. After excluding from the affidavit the information derived from the duplicate display pager, see State v. Alphonse, 315 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), we conclude that the remaining facts are insufficient to establish probable cause. The last incident supporting a probable cause determination occurred approximately six and one-half months prior to the issuance of the warrant.…
-
Brookins v. State, 343 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ut a surveillance in front of the appellant’s residence at the time of the sale. Based on the record before us, we find that the appellant’s arguments are without merit. See State v. Sebastian, 171 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1965). See also Singleton v. State, 315 So. 2d 506 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Dilberth v. State, 267 So. 2d 661 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); and Hargrett v. State, 255 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1920)
- Rodriguez v. State, 297 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1974)
- Hamelmann v. State, 113 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)