COUNTY OF DADE, STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JOSEPH FRANGIPANE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case concerns whether evidence obtained from a wiretap must be disclosed to the defendant before trial when the evidence proves a separate offense unrelated to the wiretap. The court held that disclosure is not required in such circumstances.
No, the circuit court erred. The statute requiring disclosure of wiretap materials applies only when the evidence used to convict is derived from the wiretap. Since the evidence here was unrelated to the wiretap, the disclosure requirement was not triggered.
[1] Evidence derived from a wire intercept is inadmissible unless the defendant is furnished with a copy of the application and order for the intercept ten days prior to tria…
[2] The statutory requirement for pretrial disclosure of wire intercept applications and orders does not apply to evidence of an offense unrelated to the wiretap.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The offense of which the respondent was convicted in the Dade County Metropolitan Court was avoiding payment of lawful charges for use of a telephone of the Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company “by means of a mechanical device,” in violation of a provision of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County.”
Establishes the offense for which the respondent was convicted.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent was convicted of using a mechanical device to avoid telephone charges. The conviction was based on evidence gathered during surveillance, n…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The petitioner Dade County presents for review an appellate ruling of the circuit court reversing a conviction entered in the Dade County Metropolitan Court.
The offense of which the respondent was convicted in the Dade County Metropolitan Court was avoiding payment of lawful charges for use of a telephone of the Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company “by means of a mechanical device,” in violation of a provision of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Proof of commission of the offense was adequate. The circuit court reversal of the conviction was on the ground that the state had failed to comply with the requirement of § 934.-09(8) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. excluding evidence derived from a wire intercept unless the defendant is furnished with a copy of .the application and order for the intercept ten days prior to trial.
It appears that a telephone intercept order had been obtained in another part of the state, in relation to an investigation into bolita lottery activity. Thereby there had come to light the name of a person who was placing telephone calls to the other part of the state from a certain public pay telephone in Miami. Thereafter- surveillance was placed on said person at the time of the week and day when such calls generally were so placed by him. In the course of the surveillance the person was seen placing a call from a pay telephone, in the course of which he was observed to use a mechanical device to force or manipulate a return of his telephone toll. For the commission of that unrelated offense, the respondent was properly convicted.
The petitioner contends, and we agree, that the offense was unrelated to the “wiretap,” and that the evidence to prove the offense was not derived from the wiretap, and therefore the pretrial delivery of pa*239pers under § 934.09(8) was not required, and the absence thereof was immaterial.
The judgment of the circuit court is quashed and the conviction of the respondent in the court of Metropolitan Dade County is reinstated.
It is so ordered.