Case Name: Bernard SHAKTMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-05-31
Citations: 433 So. 2d 580
Docket Number: No. 81-1558
Parties: Bernard SHAKTMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, HUBBART and NES-BITT, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 433
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
Bernard SHAKTMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 81-1558.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 31, 1983.
Rehearing Denied July 11, 1983.
Thomas G. Murray and Melvin S. Black, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and William Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, HUBBART and NES-BITT, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from multiple judgments of conviction and sentences entered below after a non-jury trial. The sole point on appeal is that the court erred in denying the defendant's pre-trial motion to suppress certain tape recordings of telephone conversations between the defendant and undercover police officers. We affirm.
In a prior appearance of this case, we reversed a prior trial court order granting the very same pre-trial defense motion to suppress. State v. Shaktman, 389 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 397 So.2d 779 (Fla.1981). We adhere to that prior ruling today as the law of the case and note that subsequently decided cases of the Florida Supreme Court support our ruling herein. Morningstar v. State, 428 So.2d 220 (Fla.1982); Hill v. State, 422 So.2d 816 (Fla.1982).
It is now settled law, as held in Shaktman I, that the state may conduct electronic surveillance of a private conversation between the defendant and a law enforcement agent, occurring anywhere except in the defendant's home, upon the sole showing that the law enforcement agent, as here,- consented to said surveillance; "once that [consent] predicate . is met, the tape recording [of the conversation] between the consenting party and the accused may be introduced into evidence, and the absence of a warrant or order, the lack of probable cause, and the non-existence of exigent circumstances are all without significance." 389 So.2d at 1046. That rule of law is applicable here and required the court below to deny the defense motion to suppress. The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are therefore
Affirmed.