Richard R. Mcdade v. State of Florida, 154 So. 3d 292

McDade was charged with sex crimes after his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter recording two conversations in his bedroom alleged ongoing abuse.
The recordings were admitted at trial over McDade’s motion to suppress under Florida chapter 934.
Second District rejected McDade’s exclusionary-rule argument and held the boyfriend’s testimony about the stepdaughter’s statements was non-hearsay because it showed why he helped obtain recordings.
The district relied on Inciarrano to find no reasonable expectation of privacy in these circumstances, leading to affirmance of admitting the recordings.
This Court rephrases the certified question and holds, in the affirmative, that the recordings fall within chapter 934’s prohibition, and that the boyfriend’s hearsay testimony was improper.
The Court quashes the Second District, reverses McDade’s convictions, and remands for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Application of Chap. 934 to minor’s recordings	McDade argues 934 applies to surreptitious recordings by the victim.	State contends the narrow Inciarrano exception excludes these recordings.	Yes, recordings fall within 934.06 prohibition.
Hearsay status of the stepdaughter’s statements via boyfriend	Boyfriend’s testimony is non-hearsay to explain why recordings were made.	Statements are hearsay and should be excluded.	Testimony is hearsay; admission was improper.
Effect of Inciarrano on privacy expectation	Inciarrano supports no reasonable expectation of privacy for recordings in this context.	Inciarrano should not control in sexual-abuse context involving a minor.	Inciarrano does not control; statutory text governs.
Exclusionary remedy under 934.06	Recordings should be suppressed as impermissibly intercepted.	No express grounds to suppress under 934.06 here.	Recordings must be suppressed.
Remand remedy	Convictions should be reversed and remanded for new trial.	Not applicable since the record was admitted.	Remand with new trial ordered.

State v. Walls, 356 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1978) (established exclusionary rule under 934.06 for improperly intercepted communications)
Inciarrano, 473 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1985) (narrowly governs privacy expectation under quasi-public premises)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (privacy expectations and societal recognition concept)
United States v. Fields, 113 F.3d 313 (2d Cir. 1997) (privacy expectations do not hinge on defendant’s activity level)
Krampert v. State, 13 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (out-of-court statements offered to explain conduct can be non-hearsay)
United States v. Curlin, 638 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2011) (trespass or lack of privacy defenses and expectation of privacy)