Kay v. State

449 So. 2d 369, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12777
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 18, 1984·No. No. 82-100·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s convictions of and sentences for delivery of methaqualone and possession of cocaine are affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the police violated his right to privacy by utilizing a “body bug” in the defendant’s office is without merit. In Morningstar v. State, 428 So.2d 220 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 86, 78 L.Ed.2d 95 (1983), the supreme court, finding section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979) constitutional, held that article 1, section 12 of the Florida Constitution does not prohibit a warrantless electronic interception of a defendant’s conversation by an undercover police officer in a defendant’s office or place of business. That holding compels our affirmance here.

Accordingly, the defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

Kay v. State, 449 So. 2d 369, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12777 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

449 So. 2d 369 (Kay v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morningstar v. State
428 So. 2d 220 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1982)