← Case library
5th DCAAugust 5, 2022Reversed and Remanded⭐ Notable

State v. Phipps

Case No. 21-2026

The State appealed an order suppressing wiretap evidence where the Statewide Prosecutor's written authorization contained a scrivener's error (an outdated phone number) that was corrected the next business day, while the actual application, affidavit, and court order all contained the correct number. The Fifth DCA reversed, holding that Chapter 934 imposes no formatting requirements on prosecutorial wiretap authorizations and that technical defects in such authorizations do not invalidate an otherwise properly authorized and executed wiretap order.

Key facts

  • The State appealed a trial court order suppressing wiretap evidence based on a scrivener's error in the Statewide Prosecutor's written authorization, which contained an outdated phone number that was corrected the next business day, while the application, affidavit, and court order all contained the correct number.
  • The trial court suppressed the wiretap evidence, finding the technical defect in the prosecutor's authorization document rendered the wiretap unlawful, despite the application, affidavit, and judicial order being otherwise complete and accurate.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This opinion clarifies that Chapter 934 does not impose a writing or contemporaneity requirement on prosecutorial wiretap authorizations, meaning clerical errors in such authorizations that are promptly corrected will… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.