Salomon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Salomon v. State

385 So. 2d 148, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17024

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 1980

DocketNos. 77-1404, 77-1405 and 77-1791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 385 So. 2d 148 (Salomon 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

Salomon v. State, 385 So. 2d 148, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17024 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

These cases recur for consideration by this court pursuant to the order of transfer in Salomon v. State, 381 So.2d 705 (Fla.1980). The appellants’ primary contentions concern the alleged invalidity of wiretap intercept orders which resulted in the monitoring of their lottery activities. See the related case of Cuba v. State, 362 So.2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 344, 347 (Fla.1979). We are powerless to consider these arguments, however, because the record contains neither the orders in question nor the applications and affidavits which supported their issuance.¹ Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979); O’Steen v. State, 92 Fla. 1062, 111 So. 725 (1926). Although the documents relating to an earlier wiretap order which supposedly initiated the entire [149]*149investigation are before us, there is no showing either that the results of the interceptions authorized by that order, which did not themselves involve the present defendants, were related to the later ones which did, or even that the appellants have standing to challenge the initial order. See United States v. Scasino, 513 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1975). So far as we know from the only source we may consider, the record, the earlier tap was totally irrelevant to the appellants’ ease.

We have carefully considered the appellants’ remaining points and find no error. The judgments below are therefore

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

These cases recur for consideration by this court pursuant to the order of transfer in Salomon v. State, 381 So.2d 705 (Fla.1980). The appellants’ primary contentions concern the alleged invalidity of wiretap intercept orders which resulted in the monitoring of their lottery activities. See the related case of Cuba v. State, 362 So.2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 344, 347 (Fla.1979). We are powerless to consider these arguments, however, because the record contains neither the orders in question nor the applications and affidavits which supported their issuance.¹ Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979); O’Steen v. State, 92 Fla. 1062, 111 So. 725 (1926). Although the documents relating to an earlier wiretap order which supposedly initiated the entire [149]*149investigation are before us, there is no showing either that the results of the interceptions authorized by that order, which did not themselves involve the present defendants, were related to the later ones which did, or even that the appellants have standing to challenge the initial order. See United States v. Scasino, 513 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1975). So far as we know from the only source we may consider, the record, the earlier tap was totally irrelevant to the appellants’ ease.

We have carefully considered the appellants’ remaining points and find no error. The judgments below are therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 So. 2d 148, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salomon-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack