State v. Hume
512 So. 2d 185 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida's amended constitution, the warrantless electronic interception of conversations inside a home by a government agent who was invited inside does not violate the state's search and seizure provision, which must be construed in conformity with the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the statutory knock-and-announce requirement does not apply when an undercover agent, lawfully inside the premises, summons other officers to enter and assist in making an arrest.
Facts:
- A police undercover agent had previously purchased cocaine from Robert William Hume.
- Based on these prior narcotics violations, police obtained a valid arrest warrant for Hume.
- One week later, the undercover agent, equipped with a concealed transmitting device ('body bug'), went to Hume's apartment to purchase more cocaine.
- Hume voluntarily invited the undercover agent into his apartment.
- Inside the bedroom, Hume showed the agent plastic bags containing marijuana and cocaine.
- The agent then used a pre-arranged code word in their conversation to signal to officers waiting outside that illegal drugs were present.
- The agent accompanied Hume to the front door and opened it, at which point the waiting officers immediately entered.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Robert William Hume in trial court with several drug offenses.
- Hume filed a motion to suppress the electronically transmitted conversation and the drugs seized from his apartment.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress both the conversation and the physical evidence.
- The State of Florida, as appellant, appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal reversed the suppression of the conversation but affirmed the suppression of the contraband, finding a violation of the knock-and-announce statute.
- Both the State of Florida and Hume, as petitioners, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the warrantless interception and transmission of a conversation from inside a suspect's home by a police undercover agent wearing a concealed electronic device violate Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, as amended, and do officers violate the state's knock-and-announce statute by entering without announcing their presence after the undercover agent opens the door for them?
Opinions:
Majority - Overton, J.
No. The warrantless interception of the conversation was constitutional, and the entry did not violate the knock-and-announce statute. The 1983 amendment to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution requires that it be interpreted in conformity with the Fourth Amendment as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Under the controlling precedent of United States v. White, a person has no justifiable expectation of privacy in conversations they voluntarily have with a government informant, and therefore, the simultaneous electronic transmission of that conversation does not constitute a search. This amendment effectively overrules State v. Sarmiento. Furthermore, the knock-and-announce statute is inapplicable when an undercover agent, already lawfully on the premises by consent, summons other officers to enter and assist with an arrest, as the defendant's privacy expectation has already been relinquished and the agent could have made the arrest alone at any time.
Dissenting - Barkett, J.
Yes. The interception of the conversation violated the Florida Constitution. The amendment to Article I, Section 12 did not repeal the express and independent state constitutional guarantee against the 'unreasonable interception of private communications by any means.' This provision, along with Florida's separate constitutional right to privacy in Article I, Section 23, provides greater protection for citizens within their homes than the federal constitution, rendering U.S. Supreme Court decisions like White non-controlling. Therefore, this Court's prior decision in State v. Sarmiento, which prohibited such warrantless electronic surveillance in the home, should remain the law.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark in Florida search and seizure law, confirming the profound impact of the 1983 'conformity amendment' to Article I, Section 12 of the state constitution. It explicitly overrules prior Florida case law, like Sarmiento, that had provided greater privacy protections than the Fourth Amendment, tethering Florida's constitutional interpretation directly to U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The ruling significantly strengthens the position of law enforcement in undercover operations by validating the use of electronic surveillance within a suspect's home (with consent of an agent) and creating a clear exception to the knock-and-announce rule. This case effectively foreclosed a path for defendants in Florida to argue for greater search and seizure protections under the state constitution than are available under the federal constitution.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Hume