From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kay v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 23, 1984
449 So. 2d 369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 82-100.

April 18, 1984. Rehearing Denied May 23, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Broward County, Stephen R. Booher, J.

Harry M. Solomon and Joel Hirschhorn, Miami, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Russell S. Bohn, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Appellant's convictions of and sentences for delivery of methaqualone and possession of cocaine are affirmed.

Defendant's contention that the police violated his right to privacy by utilizing a "body bug" in the defendant's office is without merit. In Morningstar v. State, 428 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 86, 78 L.Ed.2d 95 (1983), the supreme court, finding section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979) constitutional, held that article 1, section 12 of the Florida Constitution does not prohibit a warrantless electronic interception of a defendant's conversation by an undercover police officer in a defendant's office or place of business. That holding compels our affirmance here.

Accordingly, the defendant's convictions and sentences are affirmed.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kay v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 23, 1984
449 So. 2d 369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Kay v. State

Case Details

Full title:RONALD EDWARD KAY, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: May 23, 1984

Citations

449 So. 2d 369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)