Clay v. State

31 So. 3d 939, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4717, 2010 WL 1345027
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 7, 2010
DocketNo. 1D08-6153
StatusPublished

This text of 31 So. 3d 939 (Clay v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clay v. State, 31 So. 3d 939, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4717, 2010 WL 1345027 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Thompson v. State, 731 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 773 So.2d 58 (Fla.2000) (table); see also State v. McCormick, 719 So.2d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (distinguishing State v. Mozo, 655 So.2d 1115 (Fla.1995), and holding that “the ‘interception’ of a cellular call occurs both at the location of the tapped telephone and at the site where law enforcement authorities hear and record the call”), rev. denied mb nom, Mitchell v. State, 732 So.2d 327 (Fla.1999) (table).

HAWKES, C.J., WETHERELL and ROWE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Mozo
655 So. 2d 1115 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
State v. McCormick
719 So. 2d 1220 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Thompson v. State
731 So. 2d 819 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 So. 3d 939, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4717, 2010 WL 1345027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.