STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SEBASTIAN (BENNY) BUFFA, APPELLEE
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an Interlocutory Appeal by the State from an Order granting the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress evidence obtained by the State through a telephone wire interception.
In his Motion to Suppress, the Defendant argued that the application and affidavit for a wire interception order and the order itself were all legally insufficient and therefore fatally defective because of an error in one number of the Defendant’s street address as stated in those documents. We find that this alleged defect is nothing more than a clerical error and reverse the Order granting the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.
All of the pertinent documents correctly identified the telephone number and the person in whose name it was listed, the Defendant herein. These descriptions were sufficient to lead a reasonable person to the proper subject of the wire interception. See U. S. v. Sklaroff, 506 F. 2d 837 (5th Cir. 1975), in which an error in one digit of a telephone number was held to be no more than a clerical error in the face of other correct descriptive information.
REVERSED.
ALDERMAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McMANUS, 404 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…be read as holding that official oversights, if satisfactorily explained, will not constitute fatal defects, where the same are not proscribed by law, and the defendant is not prejudiced. Hoffman v. State, 397 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1981); State v. Buffa, 347 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Johnson v. State, 339 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976); Cain v. State, 287 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1973); Arnold v. State, 83 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1955). We reverse the order granting the motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.…
-
State v. McCORMICK, 719 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…t the State is correct that the order was not over-broad merely because it lacked an address for the cellular telephone subscribers. The order sufficiently identified the mobile, cellular telephone by its unique telephone number. See State v. Buffa, 347 So. 2d 688, 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (reversing order granting 'motion to suppress despite incorrect number in defendant’s street address in wiretap order; “All of the pertinent documents correctly identified the telephone number and the person in whose name it…
-
State v. Stolpen, 386 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…A 1979), cert. denied 378 So. 2d 345 (Fla.1979). This situation is to be distinguished from State v. Brainard, 376 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), where the missing information had little to do with the substance of the affidavit, and State v. Buffa, 347 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), where a one digit error in a defendant’s street address was held to be insufficient. Here, the New Jersey court order was crucial to issuance of the authorization. The evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Sklaroff, 506 F.2d 837 (5th Cir. 1975)