DONALD A. KELLOGG, APPELLANT,

v.

LLOYD G. FOUND AND MILDRED E. FOUND, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

• Atkins v. State, 930 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
  …was to obtain an admission from the defendant, a recorded conversation with the defendant also complies with the statute. See Thompson v. State, 731 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); State v. Stout, 693 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Franco v. State, 376 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We have not found a single case in which any court has approved the admission of a recorded conversation under section 934.03(2)(c), or pursuant to other counterparts around the country, which did not involve a conversation with…
• State v. Sarmiento, 397 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1981)
  …[*644] PER CURIAM. We have for review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Sarmiento v. State, 371 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), which conflicts with Franco v. State, 376 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The issue we address is whether the war-rantless, electronic interception by state agents of a conversation between defendant and an undercover police officer in defendant’s home is an unreasonable interception of defendant’s pri…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Bart Jacobs v. State, 389 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
  …, absent a warrant, officers could not testify to an in-person conversation with a “wired” undercover man which took place inside the defendant’s residence. We do not agree. Subsequent to the Sarmiento decision, this court ruled in Franco v. State, 376 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 636 (Fla.1980), that a warrant is not required when, as here, the requirements of Section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1977) and Tollett v. State, 272 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1973), have been met. We think that…

  ← 1 / 2 →