MIRANDA
Maristee v. State, 1D19-1769 (Fla 1st DCA 2020) Where Defendant was lured to a meeting under false pretenses with three three law enforcement officers in a small room, questioned aggressively, and required to remove his shirt, he reasonably believed he was in custody and was thus entitled to Miranda warnings. Defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether Counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress.
Myers v. State, 211 So.3d 962 (Fla. 2017) Although the four Ramirez factors frame the court’s custody analysis for Miranda purposes, the ultimate inquiry is twofold and focuses on: (1) the circumstance surrounding the interrogation, and (2) given those circumstances, whether a reasonable person would have felt he was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Unless and until the Miranda warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used against the defendant. Extend to which murder suspect was confronted with evidence of her guilt during two police interrogations weight in favor of finding that she was in custody for Miranda purposes during both interrogations. Aside from law enforcement agents one statement on each occasion that suspect was free to leave, every other fact surrounding the interviews indicated police coercion and custody, including suspect’s placement in a small room and fact that agents confronted her with a “mountain of evidence” accusing her of lying, and used a “good cop/bad cop” technique and it was clear that the purpose of the confrontational and accusatory interrogations was to solicit a confession from the suspect. Defendant should have been read her Miranda rights in this case.
F.C. v. State, 205 So.3d 831 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2016) Like the question of consent to a search, the state bears a heavy burden to demonstrate a waiver of Miranda rights, and this burden is even heavier when subject is a juvenile.
Miller v. State, 208 So.3d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) The prosecution may not use a defendant’s post Miranda silence for impeachment purposes. However, this prohibition does not apply where the defendant does not invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (but only requests counsel).
Reza v. State, 163 So.3d 572 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2015) Although lack of notification of a child’s parents is a factor court may consider in determining voluntariness of a child’s confession, it is not a statutory prerequisite to interrogation.
Somers v. State, 162 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) Officer’s testimony in describing defendant “I remember he didn’t want to speak with me” was an improper comment on defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent.
Carlisle v. State, 164 So.3d 69 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2015) Due process clause of state constitution prohibits the use of post arrest pre-Miranda silence at trial. Admission of defendant’s statement to detective that “he wasn’t going to tell detective where he got property and wasn’t going to tell on anyone” violated his right to remain silent under Miranda. Statement was made after defendant was arrested and before he was given his Miranda warnings.
Wright v. State, 161 So.3d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) Fifteen year old defendant’s waiver of Miranda rights following her prior un-Mirandized custodial confession to involvement in a murder was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Although officers’ failure to provide proper warnings was an honest mistake and officers did not minimize the significance of Miranda warnings, defendant had little experience with criminal justice system and officers did nothing to counter defendant’s probable and reasonable belief that her prior incriminating statements, made just minutes before, could be used against her.
Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct. 2174 (2013) A defendant’s silence can be held against him and referred to by the prosecution at trial if he remains silent to certain questions pre-arrest and pre-Miranda. This assumes that the defendant is not in custody at the time the statements were made.
Scotsman v. State, 4D15-2729 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 21, 2018) Reversing convictions and sentences for three counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault, detectives violated the defendant’s Miranda rights by continuing to engage with him after he invoked his right to counsel, which led to a confession that was used against him at trial.
Shelly v. State, 262 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018) Police officer’s statements following defendant’s invocation of his right to silence during murder investigation which included a promise to tell defendant what purported alibi witness said telling defendant that his mother was losing another son and telling him there was a difference between death penalty and life sentence, constituted interrogation in violation of Miranda. Officer’s actions were an attempt to use reward and punishment to induce defendant to acquiesce to continued interrogation and were not merely harmless, clarifying questions. A defendant having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him unless the defendant himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.
MIRANDA – ORAL STATEMENTS
Hanania v. State, 264 So.3d 317 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2019) Oral statements made after an unlawful search or arrest can be suppressed in the same manner as tangible evidence obtained during an unlawful search or arrest where those statements are properly considered fruits of the unlawful search.
MIRANDA
Maristee v. State, 1D19-1769 (Fla 1st DCA 2020) Where Defendant was lured to a meeting under false pretenses with three three law enforcement officers in a small room, questioned aggressively, and required to remove his shirt, he reasonably believed he was in custody and was thus entitled to Miranda warnings. Defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether Counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress.
Myers v. State, 211 So.3d 962 (Fla. 2017) Although the four Ramirez factors frame the court’s custody analysis for Miranda purposes, the ultimate inquiry is twofold and focuses on: (1) the circumstance surrounding the interrogation, and (2) given those circumstances, whether a reasonable person would have felt he was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Unless and until the Miranda warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used against the defendant. Extend to which murder suspect was confronted with evidence of her guilt during two police interrogations weight in favor of finding that she was in custody for Miranda purposes during both interrogations. Aside from law enforcement agents one statement on each occasion that suspect was free to leave, every other fact surrounding the interviews indicated police coercion and custody, including suspect’s placement in a small room and fact that agents confronted her with a “mountain of evidence” accusing her of lying, and used a “good cop/bad cop” technique and it was clear that the purpose of the confrontational and accusatory interrogations was to solicit a confession from the suspect. Defendant should have been read her Miranda rights in this case.
F.C. v. State, 205 So.3d 831 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2016) Like the question of consent to a search, the state bears a heavy burden to demonstrate a waiver of Miranda rights, and this burden is even heavier when subject is a juvenile.
Miller v. State, 208 So.3d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) The prosecution may not use a defendant’s post Miranda silence for impeachment purposes. However, this prohibition does not apply where the defendant does not invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (but only requests counsel).
Reza v. State, 163 So.3d 572 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2015) Although lack of notification of a child’s parents is a factor court may consider in determining voluntariness of a child’s confession, it is not a statutory prerequisite to interrogation.
Somers v. State, 162 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) Officer’s testimony in describing defendant “I remember he didn’t want to speak with me” was an improper comment on defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent.
Carlisle v. State, 164 So.3d 69 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2015) Due process clause of state constitution prohibits the use of post arrest pre-Miranda silence at trial. Admission of defendant’s statement to detective that “he wasn’t going to tell detective where he got property and wasn’t going to tell on anyone” violated his right to remain silent under Miranda. Statement was made after defendant was arrested and before he was given his Miranda warnings.
Wright v. State, 161 So.3d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) Fifteen year old defendant’s waiver of Miranda rights following her prior un-Mirandized custodial confession to involvement in a murder was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Although officers’ failure to provide proper warnings was an honest mistake and officers did not minimize the significance of Miranda warnings, defendant had little experience with criminal justice system and officers did nothing to counter defendant’s probable and reasonable belief that her prior incriminating statements, made just minutes before, could be used against her.
Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct. 2174 (2013) A defendant’s silence can be held against him and referred to by the prosecution at trial if he remains silent to certain questions pre-arrest and pre-Miranda. This assumes that the defendant is not in custody at the time the statements were made.
Scotsman v. State, 4D15-2729 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 21, 2018) Reversing convictions and sentences for three counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault, detectives violated the defendant’s Miranda rights by continuing to engage with him after he invoked his right to counsel, which led to a confession that was used against him at trial.
Shelly v. State, 262 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018) Police officer’s statements following defendant’s invocation of his right to silence during murder investigation which included a promise to tell defendant what purported alibi witness said telling defendant that his mother was losing another son and telling him there was a difference between death penalty and life sentence, constituted interrogation in violation of Miranda. Officer’s actions were an attempt to use reward and punishment to induce defendant to acquiesce to continued interrogation and were not merely harmless, clarifying questions. A defendant having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him unless the defendant himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.
MIRANDA – ORAL STATEMENTS
Hanania v. State, 264 So.3d 317 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2019) Oral statements made after an unlawful search or arrest can be suppressed in the same manner as tangible evidence obtained during an unlawful search or arrest where those statements are properly considered fruits of the unlawful search.
