final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 14-5562B Dennis J.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jonathan Tanoos, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellant.
T. Pallas, P.A., and George T. Pallas, for appellee.
LAGOA, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.
State of Florida seeks review of the trial court's order
suppressing recordings taken by members of the animal rights
organization, Animal Recovery Mission (ARM) documenting the
slaughter of pigs on a farm. We reverse and remand for an
defendant, Yonisley Garcia, was charged with aggravated
animal cruelty in violation of sections 828.12(2) and
777.011, Florida Statutes (2013). The charges arose after the
defendant was filmed slaughtering pigs to be sold for meat.
The defendant and his co-defendants allegedly shot the pigs,
and if the pigs did not immediately die, they drowned them in
defendant filed a motion to suppress the videos on the basis
that they were obtained in violation of the prohibition
against surreptitious recordings contained in section 934.06,
Florida Statutes (2016). He argued that the events occurred
on a private farm where he had a reasonable expectation of
privacy. The ARM members, he asserted, lied about their true
identities and purpose in order to enter the private
property, and they did not disclose that they were carrying
response to the motion to suppress, the State argued that the
pigs were sold and slaughtered on property that was open to
the public. According to the State, a sign posted at the
entrance of the property read "Animals for Sale,"
and the State asserted that the public was permitted to walk
onto the property to purchase a slaughtered pig. The
prosecutor proffered that the video recordings showed the
defendants talking to other individuals who were on the
property to purchase pigs.
hearing, no testimony was taken and no evidence was admitted
into the record. Instead, the trial court heard only argument
from the lawyers for the parties. The lawyers initially
agreed on certain facts. For example, they agreed that two
ARM members went to the property at issue with recording
devices disguised as wrist watches. The State presented a
photo of the property where the pigs were killed, but it was
not entered into evidence. As argument proceeded, however, it
became apparent that there was no agreement on the critical
at the end of the hearing, the trial court granted the motion
to suppress. It did so based on certain factual findings. For
example, the trial court found that the remote location, the
nature of the property, and the general circumstances gave
the defendant a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court
further found that the ARM members were not acting as private
citizens, but "rather as a de facto arm of the