State v. San Pedro

519 So. 2d 11, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12337, 1987 WL 1079
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 22, 1987·No. No. 87-2390·Published

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

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).

519 So. 2d 11 (State v. San Pedro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kuhlmann v. Wilson
477 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1986)
State v. Douse
448 So. 2d 1184 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Hansbrough v. State
509 So. 2d 1081 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)