Madsen v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Madsen v. State

521 So. 2d 110, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 58, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 110, 1988 WL 6034

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJanuary 28, 1988

DocketNo. 70327

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 521 So. 2d 110 (Madsen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Madsen v. State, 521 So. 2d 110, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 58, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 110, 1988 WL 6034 (Fla. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition to review Madsen v. State, 502 So.2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), in which the district court refused to suppress the recording of petitioner’s conversation with an undercover officer in the petitioner’s home. We accepted jurisdiction because the identical issue was before this Court on petition to review the lower court’s construction of the 1982 revision of article I, section 12, Florida Constitution, in State v. Hume, 463 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We have recently resolved the issue in our opinion in State v. Hume, 512 So.2d 185 (Fla.1987), in which we held that “the recording of conversations between a defendant and an undercover agent in a defendant’s home ... does not violate the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution and, accordingly, does not violate the newly adopted article I, section 12, of the Florida Constitution.” Id. at 188. We also rejected the contention that our right-of-privacy provision under article I, section 23, of the Florida Constitution prohibited the introduction of this type of evidence.

We find no conflict with Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla.1985).

In accordance with our decision in Hume, we approve the district court decision in the instant case.

It is so ordered.

MCDONALD, C.J., and EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. BARKETT, J., concurs in result only.

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

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition to review Madsen v. State, 502 So.2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), in which the district court refused to suppress the recording of petitioner’s conversation with an undercover officer in the petitioner’s home. We accepted jurisdiction because the identical issue was before this Court on petition to review the lower court’s construction of the 1982 revision of article I, section 12, Florida Constitution, in State v. Hume, 463 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We have recently resolved the issue in our opinion in State v. Hume, 512 So.2d 185 (Fla.1987), in which we held that “the recording of conversations between a defendant and an undercover agent in a defendant’s home ... does not violate the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution and, accordingly, does not violate the newly adopted article I, section 12, of the Florida Constitution.” Id. at 188. We also rejected the contention that our right-of-privacy provision under article I, section 23, of the Florida Constitution prohibited the introduction of this type of evidence.

We find no conflict with Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla.1985).

In accordance with our decision in Hume, we approve the district court decision in the instant case.

It is so ordered.

MCDONALD, C.J., and EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. BARKETT, J., concurs in result only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 So. 2d 110, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 58, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 110, 1988 WL 6034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madsen-v-state-fla-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack