ANTHONY FERRARI v. STATE OF FLORIDA
260 So. 3d 295
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2001 Ferrari and codefendants were charged with the murder of Gus Boulis; prosecution theory: Ferrari and Moscatiello conspired to have Boulis killed. Ferrari was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy and sentenced to life without parole plus 30 years consecutive.
- Investigators obtained historical cell-site location information (CSLI) for two of Ferrari’s phones by subpoena (no warrant) and used that data at trial to place the phones near the victim around the time of the murder.
- Mid-trial, defense learned of numerous undisclosed recorded statements/tapes (including tapes of Fiorillo allegedly confessing and an exculpatory statement from Curtis Jackson) that the State had not provided the defense in substance. Some tapes had been in police possession and copies had been obtained earlier by Fiorillo’s counsel.
- Ferrari moved to suppress the CSLI and later raised a Richardson discovery claim when the tapes surfaced; the trial court denied suppression and concluded no Richardson violation occurred.
- On appeal the Fourth DCA reversed, holding (1) Carpenter requires a warrant/probable cause for historical CSLI and the subpoena-derived CSLI was obtained unlawfully, and (2) the State committed a Richardson discovery violation by failing to disclose the substance of codefendant and exculpatory statements, producing prejudice requiring retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of historical CSLI (Fourth Amendment) | Ferrari: CSLI is a Fourth Amendment-protected search; records obtained by subpoena without a warrant/probable cause must be suppressed. | State: Good-faith exception or statutory compliance (subpoena) justifies use of CSLI. | Reversed suppression denial — Carpenter controls; warrant and probable cause required; good-faith exception inapplicable. |
| Statutory requirement for electronic records (Fla. §934.23) | Ferrari: Officer failed to obtain warrant or court order as statute requires. | State: relied on subpoena and practice; other carrier had produced after court order. | Court: Officer did not comply with statute or binding precedent; lack of attempt at order defeats good-faith reliance. |
| Richardson / discovery violation for undisclosed tapes/statements | Ferrari: State failed to disclose substance of codefendant Fiorillo’s statements and other exculpatory tapes (e.g., Torrens, Jackson), prejudicing defense strategy. | State: Defense had constructive notice because Fiorillo’s counsel had obtained tapes earlier and property receipts existed; no willful violation. | Reversed denial of Richardson relief — State committed a discovery violation; failure to disclose substance was not cured by delivery to codefendant’s counsel; prejudice not shown harmless. |
| Prosecutor’s comments on silence/impeachment | Ferrari: Prosecutor improperly commented on postarrest silence in cross and closing. | State: Questions addressed pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence permissible; any post-arrest comments not preserved by objection and were harmless. | Affirmed as to preserved issues — many questions addressed pre-arrest silence; objections not preserved for some comments and any error was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (Sup. Ct.) (historical cell-site location information is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant supported by probable cause)
- Tracey v. State, 152 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 2014) (real-time CSLI constitutes a search requiring a warrant; good-faith exception did not apply where officers lacked binding precedent)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (Sup. Ct.) (good-faith exception applies when officers reasonably rely on binding precedent or a warrant)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (Sup. Ct.) (police reliance on statute later held invalid can support good-faith exception in narrow circumstances)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971) (framework for evaluating discovery violations and remedies)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995) (harmless-error standard for Richardson violations; defense must show procedural prejudice)