Florida Judge Tosses Drug Evidence Due to Faulty Wiretap Authorization

Prosecutors and police officers make mistakes just like anyone. When those mistakes occur in the course of a criminal investigation, however, it can have serious implications for a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. That is why judges must take any procedural violations seriously, especially when it comes to search warrants that produce potentially incriminating evidence.

Statewide Prosecutor Not a “Political Subdivision”

In July, the Florida First District Court of Appeal refused the state’s request to reverse a trial court’s ruling in favor of a defendant on a motion to suppress evidence. The case, State v. Rogers, involved the use of a federal wiretap. In 2021, the Florida Statewide Prosecutor asked a judge in Leon County to approve a wiretap for the defendant’s phone. Florida law permits the Statewide Prosecutor to make such requests, and the judge approved the wiretap.

The wiretap led to the defendant’s arrest on multiple drug charges. Before the trial court, the defendants filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the wiretap. While the wiretap may have complied with Florida state law, the defense argued, it violated federal law. Specifically, the Federal Wiretap Act only authorizes the “principal prosecuting attorney of any State” or the “principal prosecuting attorney of any political subdivision” of a state to request wiretaps.

In Florida, the principal prosecuting attorney is the state’s Attorney General. The principal prosecuting attorney for Leon County, the relevant political subdivision of Florida in this case, is the Leon County State Attorney. The Florida Statewide Prosecutor is a separate legal officer appointed by the Attorney General for a four-year term. The Statewide Prosecutor has jurisdiction over crimes that occur in two or more different judicial circuits within Florida.

The state’s position in this case was that the Statewide Prosecutor effectively served as the principal prosecuting attorney for his own “political subdivision.” The trial court did not accept that argument. It held that the only recognized political subdivisions for purposes of the Federal Wiretap Act were Florida’s 20 judicial circuits, each of which has its own State Attorney. Since the Statewide Prosecutor was not the principal prosecutor of either the State of Florida or Leon County, the judge concluded he lacked the authority to apply for the wiretap under federal law.

Not surprisingly, the state appealed the judge’s ruling. But the First District said the decision granting the defendant’s motion to suppress the wiretap evidence stood. The appellate court agreed with the trial judge that the Statewide Prosecutor was not his own “political subdivision” as defined by the Federal Wiretap Act.

Contact AsiliA Law Firm Today

As you can see, technical questions of law can often make a significant difference when it comes to a felony criminal prosecution. If you are facing such charges, it is in your best interest to work with an experienced Miami drug trafficking lawyer who can look for any potential defects in the state’s evidence against you. Call AsiliA Law Firm today at 786-420-3014 or contact us online to schedule an initial consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12195652709044619861