State v. Foster, 89-750

Decision Date31 May 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-750,89-750
Citation562 So.2d 808
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly D1484 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Pansy Delores FOSTER, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Laura Griffin and Colin Campbell, Asst. Attys. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Michael I. Bross, Cocoa, for appellee.

W. SHARP, Judge.

The state appeals an order which suppresses certain spontaneous, incriminating statements made by Foster while she was being booked on various related drug charges. Foster was not given Miranda 1 warnings until after the booking process was completed. The suppression order was predicated upon Foster's having earlier made similar statements during the execution of a search warrant at her residence. The trial court found the earlier statements converted the booking process into an interrogation 2 and that Miranda warnings were therefore required before the statements could be admitted. We disagree and reverse.

As part of the execution of the search warrant, a Detective Bowers searched Foster at the residence and discovered cocaine in her right front pocket. Foster began crying and asked Bowers not to show it to anyone. Bowers later booked Foster. During the booking process, Foster asked Bowers how much cocaine had been found in the house. Bowers responded that suspected cocaine had been found on her person, upstairs over a washing machine area, and in the kitchen. Foster stated she had known about the cocaine over the washing machine. Bowers asked Foster only the routine booking questions.

During the booking process, a suspect is asked approximately fifteen general questions which relate solely to identity. It is simply an administrative procedure. Unless there are unusual circumstances which do not appear from the record in this case, the routine gathering of biographical data for booking purposes cannot be characterized as an inherently coercive custodial interrogation. The questions posed do not relate to criminal activity, and they are not posed to elicit an incriminating response. U.S. v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984).

The protective nature of Miranda warnings concerns investigative interrogation. We do not think Miranda applies to questions designed to obtain basic identifying data as routinely occurs at bookings or arraignments. State v. McAdams, 559 So.2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Esposito v. Adams, 700 F.Supp. 1470, 1479 (N.D.Ill.1988). Miranda warnings are not required outside the context of an inherently coercive custodial interrogation. Roberts v. U.S., 445 U.S. 552, 100 S.Ct. 1358, 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980).

While "interrogation" may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Holland v. Tucker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 3 April 2012
    ...was not initiated by the defendant. See id. We find the facts of Zeigler distinguishable from the present case. In State v. Foster, 562 So.2d 808, 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), the Fifth District Court of Appeal made the following observations: The protective nature of Miranda warnings concerns ......
  • Holland v. Tucker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 30 March 2012
    ...was not initiated by the defendant. See id. We find the facts of Zeigler distinguishable from the present case. In State v. Foster, 562 So.2d 808, 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), the Fifth District Court of Appeal made the following observations:The protective nature of Miranda warnings concerns i......
  • Hayward v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 27 August 2009
    ...(concluding that the defendant's statement was voluntary and spontaneous and not elicited by any interrogation); State v. Foster, 562 So.2d 808, 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (holding that spontaneous statements are not always the product of an interrogation); Rosher v. State, 319 So.2d 150, 152 ......
  • Tobiassen v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 8 March 2017
    ...state have routinely held that Miranda does not apply to questions designed to obtain basic booking information."); State v. Foster , 562 So.2d 808, 809 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ("During the booking process, a suspect is asked approximately fifteen general questions which relate solely to identi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT