Case Name: Thomas H. MARKHAM, Petitioner, v. Nancy S. MARKHAM, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-01-31
Citations: 272 So. 2d 813
Docket Number: No. 42667
Parties: Thomas H. MARKHAM, Petitioner, v. Nancy S. MARKHAM, Respondent.
Judges: CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 272
Pages: 813–815

Head Matter:
Thomas H. MARKHAM, Petitioner, v. Nancy S. MARKHAM, Respondent.
No. 42667.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan. 31, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1973.
William H. Maness, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Black & Leggett, P. A., Jacksonville, for respondent.

Opinion:
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 265 So.2d 59. The decision sought to be reviewed has been certified by the District Court as one passing on a question of great public interest, thereby giving this Court jurisdiction under § 4, Article V, of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
Respondent-wife brought an action for the dissolution of marriage. During the presentation of testimony on the issue of temporary custody of the children of the parties, petitioner-husband offered in evi-dencc recordings of telephone conversations" intercepted when he tapped two tele-pFoneTmes coming into the home oF the paftjesi The wife filed motion to suppress the intercepted wire communication contents and evidence derived therefrom, relying upon Title 18, Section 2518, of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1968, and Section 934.06, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress and ruled that the tape recordings were admissible, preserving only to the wife the right to object to portions of the recordings on the grounds of relevancy or materiality.
On appeal, the District Court held that the statutory and constitutional law of the State of Florida precluded the admissibility into evidence of a recording of a telephone conversation if neither party thereto consents, in the absence of authorization for such recording by a court of competent jurisdiction. In reaching its decision, the District Court, relying principally on constitutional guarantees of the right to privacy and Florida Statutes § 934.01 (4) , F.S. A., held:
"The undisputed facts in this cause are that neither party to the conversations consented to the interception. The interception of the conversations resulted from the wiretapping activities by a third party. The subject statute does not provide that a subscriber-husband is permitted to wiretap. It states unequivocally that 'when none of the parties to the communication has consented', such interception should be allowed only upon a court's order. The cited Florida constitutional provisions shores up the conclusion that a husband does not possess the right to invade his wife's right of privacy by utilizing electronic devices." (Emphasis theirs)
The District Court has correctly answered the question presented and its decision is adopted as the decision of this Court. The Statute in question makes no exception allowing admission of wiretap evidence in domestic relations cases when neither party to the communication consented to the interception.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court in this cause is affirmed and the writ is discharged.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
MELVIN, WOODROW H" Circuit Judge, dissents with opinion.
. "To safeguard tlie privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court. "
. Markham v. Markham, 265 So.2d 59, 61 (Ma.App. 1st 1972).