Padgett v. State

404 So. 2d 151
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 17, 1981
DocketYY-495
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 404 So. 2d 151 (Padgett 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
Padgett v. State, 404 So. 2d 151 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

404 So.2d 151 (1981)

Joseph H. PADGETT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. YY-495.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 17, 1981.
Rehearing Denied October 22, 1981.

*152 Ronald A. Dion, Entin, Schwartz, Angert, Dion & Broudy, North Miami Beach, Clyde M. Taylor, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed for the offense of unlawful compensation, § 838.016, Florida Statutes. We affirm the order appealed.

Among other contentions, appellant alleges error based upon the court's denial of a motion to suppress tape recordings made from the warrantless interception, pursuant to § 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes, of conversations between appellant and a police informant. The tapes include conversations which occurred in a motel room appellant used in furtherance of his illegal activity. The record indicates that upon being contacted at his private residence appellant arranged meetings at the motel room.

Article I, § 12, Florida Constitution, precludes the warrantless interception of private conversations conducted in the subject's home. State v. Sarmiento, 397 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1981); also see Hoberman v. State, 400 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1981). However, in the circumstances of the present case we reject appellant's suggestion that his motel room was the "functional equivalent" of a home, and we thus conclude that Sarmiento and Hoberman are inapplicable in this instance.

The order appealed is affirmed.

BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Loh
2010 ND 66 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2010)
State v. Kummer
481 N.W.2d 437 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1992)
Commonwealth v. Schaeffer
536 A.2d 354 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Powe v. State
443 So. 2d 154 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Williams v. State
420 So. 2d 404 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Zacke v. State
418 So. 2d 1118 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Ruiz v. State
416 So. 2d 32 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Miller v. State
411 So. 2d 944 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Hurst v. State
409 So. 2d 1059 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Morningstar v. State
405 So. 2d 778 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
404 So. 2d 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padgett-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.