Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Dennis L. RIDENOUR, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-07-24
Citations: 453 So. 2d 193
Docket Number: No. 84-263
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Dennis L. RIDENOUR, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUB-BART and NESBITT, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 453
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Dennis L. RIDENOUR, Appellee.
No. 84-263.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third. District.
July 24, 1984.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
William B. Seidel, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUB-BART and NESBITT, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the state from an order suppressing the fruits of an electronic surveillance of certain conversations of the defendant in his home conducted by an undercover police officer equipped with a "body bug" with the officer's consent. The defendant attacked the surveillance in his motion to suppress as having been unconstitutionally conducted under Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Sarmiento, 397 So.2d 643 (Fla.1981). The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress. We reverse.
Subsequent to the Sarmiento decision, Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution was amended to provide that the right secured thereby "shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court," and that "[ajrticles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution." We hold that Sarmiento does not survive these amendments to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution inasmuch as there are no United States Supreme Court decisions holding the same as Sarmiento; indeed, there are United States Supreme Court decisions in conflict with Sarmiento. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971); Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462 (1963). This being so, Sar-miento is no longer the law of Florida and was erroneously relied on by the trial court as authority to suppress the fruits of the subject electronic surveillance. Moreover, it is plain that the amendments to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution are applicable to this case because the subject electronic surveillance took place after January 3, 1983, the effective date of said amendments. See State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla.1983).
The order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.