David Calhoun, the defendant, and his brother were in jail on various charges when Calhoun became a suspect in a separate armed robbery. Detectives brought Calhoun to an interview room in the sheriff's office, which was equipped with a concealed videotape camera and a microphone. After being read his 'Miranda' rights, Calhoun asked to speak to his brother before talking to detectives. The brothers were left alone, ostensibly for a private conversation, which was monitored by detectives for 'investigative purposes.' No court order authorized the intercept. The appeal court upheld the trial court's suppression of the conversation as evidence based on the fourth amendment right to privacy and the Florida constitution, which prohibits the unauthorized recording of private conversations. The court also recognized violations of the fifth amendment self-incrimination prohibition and the sixth amendment right to counsel. The sixth amendment, however, was not applicable because there had been no initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings, and the interrogation necessary to invoke the fifth amendment was not present. The court should have focused on the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts' reasoning regarding prison searches, i.e., that warrantless prison searches must be justified by a legitimate penological need. The Calhoun search did not qualify under this standard, since the search was for investigative rather than penological purposes. 92 footnotes.