Opinion ID: 515522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Suppression of the Tapes

Text: 20 A much more difficult question is presented by the refusal of the trial court to exclude from evidence the contents of the intercepted telephone messages. We must first decide whether federal or state law controls our decision on whether the intercepts were valid. To begin with, we note that the intercepts here were based on an application by a state agent to a state court judge, and the warrant was issued by a state court judge. This Court has plainly held that under such circumstances, state law applies if it is more rigorous than the federal law. U.S. v. Domme, 753 F.2d 950 (11th Cir.1985) (citing U.S. v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335, 1347 (11th Cir.1984)). In deciding this issue, we look, of course, not to the language of the statute alone, but to the state and federal court decisions interpreting the different statutes. 21 The federal statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)(a-f), is, in all relevant aspects, identical with the Florida statute, 934.09(1)(a-f). Both statutes require that each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire or oral communication shall be in writing upon oath or affirmation and shall include the following information: 22 ... (e) A full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications known to the individual authorizing and making the application, made to any judge for authorization to intercept, or for approval of interceptions of, wire or oral communications involving any of the same persons, facilities or places specified in the application and the action taken by the judge on each such application; .... 23 (Emphasis added) 24 The statutes also required a full and complete statement of other facts and circumstances upon which the applicant relied, but in view of the disposition we make of the appeal, it is not necessary to discuss them. 25 As to the requirements of both federal and state statutes quoted above, reference to the three applications to intercept show the following: 26 The initial application contained the following statement: 27 Your affiant has knowledge of a previous application made to a judge of the Fifteen Judicial Circuit to intercept or for approval of interceptions of wire communications which may involve some of the same persons, facilities, or places specified in this application. 28 The application for the first extension of time within which to intercept oral communications contained the following statement: 29 Your affiant has knowledge of previous applications made to judges of the Fourth and Fifteen Judicial Circuit to intercept or for approval of interceptions of wire communications which may involve some of the same persons, facilities, or places specified in this application. 30 The application for the second extension of time within which to intercept wire communications contained the following statement: 31 Your affiant has knowledge of previous applications made to judges of the Fourth and Fifteen Judicial Circuit of Florida and the Federal District of South Carolina to intercept or for approval of interceptions of wire communications which may involve some of the same persons, facilities, or places specified in this application. 32 None of the applications made the slightest reference to the requirement that all applications must include a full and complete statement of ... the action taken by the judge on each such application. 33 It is plain that neither statute is more rigorous than the other. However, when we look to the state and federal court opinions interpreting the validity of the warrants issued under the respective statutes, as this Court did in Domme, supra, and Bascaro, supra, it is plain that the validity of such warrants issued by state judges as construed by the Florida courts is, so far as is relevant here, diametrically opposed to that of the federal courts. 34 Under the state decisions, the evidence obtained by this taped surveillance must be suppressed. Bagley v. State, 397 So.2d 1036 (Fla.D.C.App.1981); State v. Aurilio, 366 So.2d 71 (Fla.D.C.App.1978). The Florida Court of Appeals in Aurilio, had before it a case in which the trial court had suppressed information received by a telephone tape as to which the application failed to include a statement as to previous wiretap applications involving the persons whose communications were sought to be intercepted, i.e., the information specifically required to be set forth in the application by Section 934.09(1)(e). The Florida court, noting that the decision by the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413, 97 S.Ct. 658, 50 L.Ed.2d 652 (1977), had held that not every omission of information called for by the statute would require suppression, clearly disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision, in interpreting the requirements of the Florida statute. 35 The Florida court referred to the dissent in Donovan and stated: 36 We have similar problems agreeing with the majority in Donovan. First, to agree, we must hold that the failure to comply with two important statutory requirements does not affect the validity of a wiretap application and an authorization issued pursuant thereto. Secondly, we cannot help but feel that a judge's decision to issue a wiretap authorization would be seriously affected by the disclosure of the details of previous wiretap applications. In other words, a judge may well deny an application knowing previous wiretaps have failed or that past applications have been denied or knowing other similar pertinent information. Thus, while we may agree that the failure to disclose the names of all potential persons to be intercepted may not play a substantive role in the authorization process, we cannot reach the same conclusion with respect to the failure to disclose information about prior wiretaps.... 37 366 So.2d at 76. 38 Certainly no one could say that the Florida statute as construed by the Florida court is not more rigorous in its protection of the privacy of its citizens than are the federal courts as evidenced by the Florida courts' disagreement with Donovan. The less rigorous effect of the federal court's decisions is also illustrated in U.S. v. Van Horn, 789 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir.1986). There, this Court, in applying federal law, because the court was dealing with a federally issued intercept order, followed Donovan and held that inadvertent noncompliance with the Section 2518(1)(e) disclosure requirement does not mandate suppression.... 789 F.2d at 1500. 39 Lest it be said that Bagley and Aurilio are not decisions of the Florida Supreme Court, we simply note that they are wholly consistent with, and rely on, the decision by the Florida Supreme Court in In re Grand Jury Investigation, 287 So.2d 43 (Fla.1973). There, the court stated: 40 That part of the Florida Statutes dealing with Security of Communications, Chapter 934, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and more particularly F.S. Sec. 934.07, F.S.A., authorizing interception of wire or oral communications of persons, is a statutory exception to the constitutional (federal and state) right to privacy. Therefore, as an exception to a constitutional right it must be strictly construed and narrowly limited in application to the uses delineated by the Florida Legislature. 41 287 So.2d at 47. 42 A narrow limitation in the application of Section 934.09(1)(e) must, as determined by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals, require the suppression of evidence obtained from an interception that was not validly authorized. 43 The trial court erred in not suppressing the testimony represented by the intercepts. 44 The judgments are REVERSED.