Wagner v. Stat

707 So.2d 827 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Officer Duncan enlisted the aid of a female confidential informant to make drug purchases. The informant made the purchases from an automobile equipped with a hidden video camera which provided a view of the driver's window. Officer Duncan gave a detailed explanation as to the installation and operation of the camera. He explained the manner in which he mounted a Sony recording device in the trunk of a county-owned vehicle, attached by wire to a camera and microphone positioned on the rear window tray of the vehicle. The camera and lens were covered by a blanket containing a small hole through which the camera lens protruded. He further testified that he tested the apparatus and that it was in good order and was working properly during the time of the drug investigation. The vehicle was searched, and the informant was strip-searched by a female employee before the informant was sent to the purchase area. No contraband or currency was found. Officer Duncan then gave the informant twenty dollars, turned on the video recorder, verbally recorded the date and time, and sent the informant to the purchase area along 16th street. Officer Duncan followed the informant in a separate vehicle, but when approaching D's area on 16th street, he diverted his vehicle to a course on 17th street, parallel with the informant's vehicle. He observed the informant during most of her travel to and from the purchase area but did not observe the actual transaction for fear of being detected. The videotape showed that the informant stopped the car and remained seated when D approached her and conversed with her through the driver's window. D, within a few seconds of his approach, handed the informant something and she handed him what appeared to be United States currency. The informant, upon return to a prearranged location, presented Officer Duncan with a twenty-dollar rock of cocaine. Officer Duncan then turned off the video camera. After waiting for approximately thirty minutes, Officer Duncan turned the video camera back on, verbally recorded the time and date, gave the informant another twenty dollars, and sent her back to the same area where she made the first purchase. The informant once again returned with a rock of cocaine. This process was repeated a third time under the same circumstances and with the same results. The jury was permitted to view the tapes but was not allowed to hear the audio portion. D was found guilty and appealed.