Case Name: Garnett Dwayne BOWE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-02-14
Citations: 785 So. 2d 531
Docket Number: No. 4D99-2845
Parties: Garnett Dwayne BOWE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DELL and STEVENSON, JJ, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 785
Pages: 531–533

Head Matter:
Garnett Dwayne BOWE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D99-2845.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 14, 2001.
Opinion on Denial of Rehearing May 2, 2001.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Maxine Williams, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Hyndman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
GROSS, J.
We affirm appellant's conviction for two counts of tampering with evidence and write to address one issue — whether a detective's testimony concerning a caller I.D. readout and the numbers appearing on the digital display of appellant's pager constituted inadmissible hearsay.
In this case, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office set up a drug deal with appellant, using a confidential informant. The informant contacted appellant through a "hello line," a phone at the Sheriffs Office used by the special investigations unit. The "hello line" was set up so that the Sheriffs Office would not appear on the caller I.D. display of anyone called from the phone.
The informant used the "hello line" to call appellant's mobile pager. The informant sent a page comprised of the "hello line" phone number and the number 40, a way of communicating that the informant wanted to purchase four cocaine rocks at ten dollars each.
Several minutes later, the "hello line" rang. A detective testified that the caller I.D. hooked up to the line indicated that the call came from "Craig Bowe." Appellant and the informant agreed to meet in fifteen minutes.
After appellant was arrested, the deputies found his pager. A detective testified that the pager displayed the "hello line's" phone number and the number 40.
Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously allowed the detective to describe the readouts from the pager and the caller I.D. box, since both were hearsay.
The Florida Evidence Code characterizes hearsay in terms of statements made by "persons." Subsection 90.801(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2000), defines hearsay as including an out-of-court "statement" of a declarant. Subsection 90.801(l)(b) defines a "declarant" as a "person who makes a statement." Therefore, only statements made by persons fall within the definition of hearsay.
The caller I.D. display and pager readouts are not statements generated by a person, so they are not hearsay within the meaning of subsection 90.801(l)(c). See Inglett v. State, 239 Ga.App. 524, 521 S.E.2d 241, 245 (1999) (holding that caller I.D. display not hearsay), cert. denied, No. S99C175, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 39, *1 (Ga. Jan. 14, 2000); Tatum v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 585, 440 S.E.2d 133, 135 (1994) (finding that display on caller I.D. device not hearsay, since device is not "out of court asserter"). Such evidence is admissible unless excluded by some other evi-dentiary rule.
AFFIRMED.
DELL and STEVENSON, JJ, concur.