Case Name: STATE of Florida ex rel. David KENNEDY and Frank Cobo, Relators, v. Thomas E. LEE, Chief Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-03-13
Citations: 274 So. 2d 881
Docket Number: No. 43470
Parties: STATE of Florida ex rel. David KENNEDY and Frank Cobo, Relators, v. Thomas E. LEE, Chief Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, et al., Respondents.
Judges: CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 274
Pages: 881–883

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida ex rel. David KENNEDY and Frank Cobo, Relators, v. Thomas E. LEE, Chief Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, et al., Respondents.
No. 43470.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 13, 1973.
Angus M. Stephens, Jr., of Stephens & McMillen, Miami, for relators.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Barry Scott Richard, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Suggestion for a Rule Nisi in Prohibition has been filed in this Court by Rela-tors praying that Respondents be restrained from (a) disclosing all intercepted wire and oral communications obtained as a result of orders authorizing same in Case Nos. (72-1-MPD), 72-2; 72-3, by Justice James C. Adkins of the Supreme Court of Florida; (b) investigating any alleged wrongdoing arising from any information uncovered or disclosed by intercepted wire and oral communications ordered by Justice Adkins, and (c) using any and all evidence uncovered or disclosed by intercepted wire and oral communications subsequently obtained or uncovered by said intercepted communications.
The grounds on which Relators rely for issuance of the Rule Nisi are that neither Justice Adkins nor any other member of this Court had authority under the State Constitution, F.S.A., (particularly Article V, Section 1, Section 2, Section 3 and Section 4(2)), or Section 4(2), or under Florida Statutes Section 934.02 and 934.09(1), (2), (3), and Chapter 25, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to authorize the interception of said oral or wire communications; that the Supreme Court of Florida is a court of limited jurisdiction having powers of organic law only as appears in Article V, Section 4 of the State Constitution, and not as pro vided by law; finally, that in contrast the District Court of Appeal under Article V, Section 5(3), State Constitution, shall have certain powers as provided by law. Relators therefore maintain neither a Justice hereof nor this Court has statutory authority to issue an interception order.
The foregoing considered, we decline to issue the Rule Nisi because we find nothing in Article V of the Florida Constitution (either before or after the recent revision) which would preclude any Justice of this Court from issuing an interception order pursuant to statutory authority. Our Constitution is a limitation upon power, not a grant of power, and accordingly the Legislature is fully empowered to authorize activities by judicial officers not inconsistent with the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Moreover, the limitations on jurisdiction permitted to this Court are not restrictive of the capacity of a Justice to act as a judicial officer of the State. We note also that Section 25 of Article V (as well as Section 19 of revised Article V) provides that all judicial officers, including Justices of this Court, shall be conservators of the peace; as such, they are vested, among other things, with the power and authority given to committing magistrates. See 1962 Op.Atty.Gen. 062-10. The duties and responsibilities of a committing magistrate are certainly akin to the duties and responsibilities of judicial officers authorized to permit interception of communications under Florida Statutes, Chapter 934, F.S.A. See United States v. Lanza, 341 F. Supp. 405 (M.D.Fla.1972).
Although we decline to issue the Rule, the orders under question remain subject to review as to their appropriateness, including the question of probable cause, in the normal course of events in the forum below.
The suggestion for Writ of Prohibition is denied.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, J., concurs specially with opinion.