Legal Opinion

Mead v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 17, 2010No. 4D08-4005PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGross, C.J.

An arson victim taped a phone conversation with an acquaintance who was the primary suspect for a crime. We hold that a law enforcement officer’s verbal authorization to the victim to tape any such phone conversation was sufficient to render the victim’s “interception” of the phone communication lawful under section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2006).

The state charged Paul Mead with burglary of a dwelling and arson, arising from a 2006 house fire. Shortly after the fire, the owner of the house was interviewed by Lieutenant Richard Schuler, a supervisor with the State Fire Marshal’s Office.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Miller v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  2. Commerford v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Randy W. Tundidor v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 2017
  2. Seal v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
  3. Randy W. Tundidor v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 2017
  4. Seal v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API