AFFIRMED. Thompson v. State, 731 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 773 So.2d 58 (Fla. 2000) (table); see also State v. McCormick, 719 So.2d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (distinguishing State v. Mozo, 655 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 1995), and holding that “the ‘interception’ of a cellular call occurs both at the location of the tapped telephone and at the site where law enforcement authorities hear and record the call”), rev. denied mb nom, Mitchell v. State, 732 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1999) (table).