State v. Earle

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Earle

444 So. 2d 84, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11598

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 31, 1984·No. Nos. 82-2475, 83-391·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The lower court suppressed the evidence obtained through a series of court-authoriz[85]*85ed wiretaps on the sole ground that City of Miami police officers who applied for the orders and who participated in the interceptions were, for a variety of highly-technical reasons relating to their bonds and oaths, not properly authorized special investigators of the Dade County State Attorney as stated in their affidavits¹ and designated in the orders as those authorized to conduct the taps.² Even assuming without deciding, however, that the determination that the officers did not occupy that position was correct, it is clear that that legal conclusion is irrelevant to the sufficiency of the underlying applications for the orders. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Sections 934.09(1)(a), 934.02(6), Florida Statutes (1981). Since the participation of the City officers both was previously made known to the judges who issued the orders and actually took place under the supervision of persons who were undisputably duly-constituted state attorney’s investigators, it is likewise the case, as established by United States v. Lyons, 507 F.Supp. 551 (D.Md.1981), aff’d, 695 F.2d 802 (4th Cir.1982), which we approve and follow, that the officers’ supposed lack of that official status does not affect the propriety of their activities in monitoring the conversations themselves. See Secs. 934.09(4)(d); 934.02(10), Fla.Stat. The orders of suppression under review are therefore reversed and the causes remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The lower court suppressed the evidence obtained through a series of court-authoriz[85]*85ed wiretaps on the sole ground that City of Miami police officers who applied for the orders and who participated in the interceptions were, for a variety of highly-technical reasons relating to their bonds and oaths, not properly authorized special investigators of the Dade County State Attorney as stated in their affidavits¹ and designated in the orders as those authorized to conduct the taps.² Even assuming without deciding, however, that the determination that the officers did not occupy that position was correct, it is clear that that legal conclusion is irrelevant to the sufficiency of the underlying applications for the orders. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Sections 934.09(1)(a), 934.02(6), Florida Statutes (1981). Since the participation of the City officers both was previously made known to the judges who issued the orders and actually took place under the supervision of persons who were undisputably duly-constituted state attorney’s investigators, it is likewise the case, as established by United States v. Lyons, 507 F.Supp. 551 (D.Md.1981), aff’d, 695 F.2d 802 (4th Cir.1982), which we approve and follow, that the officers’ supposed lack of that official status does not affect the propriety of their activities in monitoring the conversations themselves. See Secs. 934.09(4)(d); 934.02(10), Fla.Stat. The orders of suppression under review are therefore reversed and the causes remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.

State v. Earle, 444 So. 2d 84, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11598 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

444 So. 2d 84 (State v. Earle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related