Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William Robert RALSTON, Appellee; STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Roth Ross WOOD and Ray Jackson Stroebel, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-12-08
Citations: 422 So. 2d 1093
Docket Number: Nos. 81-259, 81-260
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William Robert RALSTON, Appellee. STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Roth Ross WOOD and Ray Jackson Stroebel, Appellees.
Judges: ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 422
Pages: 1093–1093

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William Robert RALSTON, Appellee. STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Roth Ross WOOD and Ray Jackson Stroebel, Appellees.
Nos. 81-259, 81-260.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 8, 1982.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stewart J. Bellus, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Marc S. Nurik of Nurik, O’Donnell & Lazarus, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees Wood and Stroebel.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
REVERSED. See State v. Benitez, 395 So.2d 514 (Fla.1981). We also reject the claim by appellees that Section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1979) violates their right to privacy embodied in Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution. Cf., State v. Benitez, 395 So.2d, at 519-520 (discussion of defendant's right not to be compelled to incriminate himself).
Accordingly, this cause is reversed with directions that the charges against appel-lees be reinstated.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.