Clay v. State
31 So. 3d 939, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4717, 2010 WL 1345027
Opinion
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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Clay v. State, 31 So. 3d 939, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4717, 2010 WL 1345027 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).
31 So. 3d 939 (Clay v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)