Urbanek v. Urbanek

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Urbanek v. Urbanek

50 So. 3d 1246, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 545, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 194

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 2011

DocketNo. 4D10-2459

StatusPublished

This text of 50 So. 3d 1246 (Urbanek v. Urbanek) 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

Urbanek v. Urbanek, 50 So. 3d 1246, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 545, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 194 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

August Urbanek seeks certiorari review of a non-final order compelling him to answer certain interrogatories that he refused to answer based on his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. At issue are questions surrounding a tape recorded conversation. We grant his petition with respect to questions four through seven, which concern the details surrounding the decision to tape, the taping itself, the equipment used, and whether the tape was altered or edited. See generally, Belniak v. McWilliams, 44 So.3d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The record does not reflect that the privilege is being used in this case as a “sword and shield.” DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Co., 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Also, we reject any suggestion that petitioner waived the privilege by acknowledging that the conversation at issue was tape recorded. Pisciotti v. Stephens, 940 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

CeHiorari granted and order quashed.

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

August Urbanek seeks certiorari review of a non-final order compelling him to answer certain interrogatories that he refused to answer based on his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. At issue are questions surrounding a tape recorded conversation. We grant his petition with respect to questions four through seven, which concern the details surrounding the decision to tape, the taping itself, the equipment used, and whether the tape was altered or edited. See generally, Belniak v. McWilliams, 44 So.3d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The record does not reflect that the privilege is being used in this case as a “sword and shield.” DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Co., 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Also, we reject any suggestion that petitioner waived the privilege by acknowledging that the conversation at issue was tape recorded. Pisciotti v. Stephens, 940 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

CeHiorari granted and order quashed.

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 So. 3d 1246, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 545, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/urbanek-v-urbanek-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack