Kay v. State, 449 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). · Go Syfert
Kay v. State, 449 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Ronald Edward KAY
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 82-100.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Apr 18, 1984.
Published opinion
449 So. 2d 369
1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12777
Harry M. Solomon and Joel Hirschhorn, Miami, for appellant., Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Russell S. Bohn, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Glickstein, Hurley, Walden.
Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s convictions of and sentences for delivery of methaqualone and possession of cocaine are affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the police violated his right to privacy by utilizing a “body bug” in the defendant’s office is without merit. In Morningstar v. State, 428 So.2d 220 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 86, 78 L.Ed.2d 95 (1983), the supreme court, finding section 934.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979) constitutional, held that article 1, section 12 of the Florida Constitution does not prohibit a warrantless electronic interception of a defendant’s conversation by an undercover police officer in a defendant’s office or place of business. That holding compels our affirmance here.

Accordingly, the defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.