Hentz v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8418
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Richard Hentz appeals a trial court ruling denying his motion to suppress evidence derived from a recorded phone conversation between co-defendant Menzel and Hentz.
- Hentz was charged with sexual battery and simple battery; he entered a negotiated plea to battery after suppression issues.
- The state sought to introduce evidence obtained from a recorded Menzel–Hentz phone call and from seized cell phone data.
- The recording occurred in a noncustodial interview room at the Indian River County Sheriff’s Office where Menzel believed he had privacy.
- The trial court denied suppression, and Hentz pled no contest to the battery charge.
- On appeal, the issue is whether the phone conversation was intercepted in violation of Florida’s wiretap statute, § 934.03, and whether Hentz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the interception of the phone conversation violated § 934.03 | Hentz: interception intentional given officers’ knowledge and actions | State: interception not intentional; no intent to intercept the phone part | Yes, interception was intentional and violates § 934.03. |
| Whether Hentz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone conversation | Hentz: home-based privacy; Mozo supports home-origin privacy | State: origin at police station; Mozo distinguished | Yes, Hentz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home-based conversation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mozo v. State, 655 So.2d 1115 (Fla.1995) (home cordless phone privacy protected under Florida law)
- State v. Inciarrano, 473 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985) (privacy expectation depends on circumstances; not public communications)
- Linehan v. State, 442 So.2d 244 (Fla.2d DCA 1983) (distinguishes general vs specific intent in interpreting § 934.03)
- Mozo v. State, 655 So.2d 1115 (Fla.1995) (interception occurs where conversation originates; cordless home privacy concerns)
- State v. Hebert, 8 So.3d 393 (Fla.4th DCA 2009) (trial court rulings on suppression reviewed de novo for legal issues)