Case Name: Louis HOBERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-04-30
Citations: 400 So. 2d 758
Docket Number: No. 57887
Parties: Louis HOBERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 400
Pages: 758–762

Head Matter:
Louis HOBERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 57887.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 30, 1981.
As Corrected On Denial of Rehearing July 31, 1981.
Raymond J. Takiff of the Law Offices of Raymond J. Takiff, Coconut Grove, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendel-son, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On March 7, 1979, appellant was convicted of bribery and unlawful compensation for official behavior pursuant to sections 838.015(1) and 838.016(1), Florida Statutes (1977). The convictions were grounded in part upon tape recordings of private incriminating conversations between appellant and a Dr. Airan in appellant's home. The conversations were transmitted by a "body bug" planted on Dr. Airan to a police vehicle some four blocks away. In light of our recent decision in State v. Sarmiento, 397 So.2d 643 (Fla.1981), the tape recordings of conversations held in the home should have been suppressed, and we therefore reverse.
For guidance in the event of a re-trial, we note that appellant's challenge to the composition of the grand jury was laid to rest in Reed v. State, 267 So.2d 70 (Fla. 1972), and Portee v. State, 253 So.2d 866 (Fla. 1971). Appellant's vagueness challenge fails because sections 838.015(1) and 838.016(1) convey a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct, see Faust v. State, 354 So.2d 866 (Fla. 1978); Zachary v. State, 269 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1972), and his assertion of overbreadth is unavailing because he has failed to show that the statutes could be applied to constitutionally protected conduct, see Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So.2d 3 (Fla. 1979).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
ALDERMAN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, with which BOYD, J., concurs.