State v. San Pedro

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. San Pedro

519 So. 2d 11, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12337, 1987 WL 1079

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 22, 1987

DocketNo. 87-2390

StatusPublished

This text of 519 So. 2d 11 (State v. San Pedro) 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

State v. San Pedro, 519 So. 2d 11, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12337, 1987 WL 1079 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order of suppression under review is reversed in its entirety. Even assuming arguendo that the defendants’ sixth amendment rights had attached at the time that the evidence in question was secured, see State v. Douse, 448 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), Kuhlmann v. Wilson, All U.S. 436, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986), clearly establishes that there was no violation of those rights either in the maintenance of a passive, court-authorized, room “bug” through which the appellees’ conversations were overheard, or in the presence of a police agent who did not affirmatively solicit information from them. The allegedly improper motivation for the initial, otherwise entirely appropriate, arrests is constitutionally irrelevant. Hansbrough v. State, 509 So.2d 1081 (Fla.1987).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order of suppression under review is reversed in its entirety. Even assuming arguendo that the defendants’ sixth amendment rights had attached at the time that the evidence in question was secured, see State v. Douse, 448 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), Kuhlmann v. Wilson, All U.S. 436, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986), clearly establishes that there was no violation of those rights either in the maintenance of a passive, court-authorized, room “bug” through which the appellees’ conversations were overheard, or in the presence of a police agent who did not affirmatively solicit information from them. The allegedly improper motivation for the initial, otherwise entirely appropriate, arrests is constitutionally irrelevant. Hansbrough v. State, 509 So.2d 1081 (Fla.1987).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 So. 2d 11, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12337, 1987 WL 1079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-san-pedro-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack