STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,

v.

IN THE INTEREST OF R. L. J., A CHILD, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
  …ation on the basis that it was an unlawful interception of a wire communication in violation of chapter 934. The dis [*421] trict court affirmed this ruling only because it felt compelled to do so in light of this Court’s decision in State v. Walls, 356 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1978). Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial,…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Briggs v. Salcines, 392 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
  …-client privilege, cannot be compelled to produce the tapes. We hereby issue a writ of certiorari and remand the case to the circuit court with instructions that it quash the state’s subpoena. SC1SEB, C. J., and OTT, J., concur. . State v. Walls, 356 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1978), holds that Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1979), prohibits the secret recording of a conversation by a party to that conversation. But see State v. Tsavaris, 382 So. 2d 56 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), which urges the supreme court to revisit th…
• State v. Inciarrano, 473 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1985)
  …. With much reluctance and after convincing reasoning to the contrary, [*1274] the district court answered its certified question in the affirmative. We disagree and find that neither State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981), nor State v. Walls, 356 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1978), controls the answer to the narrow question before us. We hold that under the circumstances of this case the subject tape recording does not fall within the statutory proscription of chapter 934. Inciarrano went to the office of the vict…

  ← 1 / 2 →