Legal Opinion

State v. Eber

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 20, 1987No. Nos. 86-65, 86-70, 86-71, 86-72 and 86-75PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The trial court’s order granting the defendants’ consolidated motions to suppress evidence gathered by court authorized electronic surveillance, being amply supported by substantial competent evidence and controlling case law, is affirmed as to all defendants except Richard San Roman. Unlike the other defendants, San Roman is not an aggrieved person as that term is defined in Section 934.02(9), Florida Statutes (1981),1 and has no standing to complain of infringements on the constitutional rights of others. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Sarno v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Alderman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Sarno v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  3. State v. FergusonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  4. Scheider v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1980

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mozo v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  2. Brugmann v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API