State v. Glatzmayer

• Decision Date: 03 May 2001
• Docket Number: No. SC00-602.,SC00-602.
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Brian L. GLATZMAYER, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

789 So.2d 297

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Brian L. GLATZMAYER, Respondent.

No. SC00-602.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 3, 2001.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 2001.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Celia A. Terenzio, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Petitioner.

Michael Salnick, West Palm Beach, Florida; and Ian J. Goldstein, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.

SHAW, J.

We have for review Glatzmayer v. State, 754 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), wherein the district court certified the following question:

When suspects who are considering waiving their Miranda rights ask law enforcement officers if they should invoke the right to counsel, what does Almeida require of the officers?

Glatzmayer, 754 So.2d at 74. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer as explained below and quash Glatzmayer.

I. FACTS

The relevant facts are set forth in the trial court's order denying Glatzmayer's motion to suppress:

In the early morning hours of February 15, 1998, Eric Schunk was shot and killed in the Rainberry Woods Park in Delray Beach, Florida. When the police arrived, the defendant, Brian Glatzmayer, was at the scene and believed to be a witness to what he claimed was a drive-by shooting. After speaking with Glatzmayer the police felt that the physical evidence at the scene was inconsistent with his version of the incident. Through follow up investigation, Glatzmayer and three other individuals became suspects in the murder of Eric Schunk.

On February 16, 1998, Detective Ed Flynn of the Delray Beach Police department went to the home of a witness to show her a photo lineup. The defendant was present and told Flynn that he wanted to change his statement. He was taken to the police department and [Detective Flynn] along with Sgt. Robert Brand questioned him. He was advised of his Miranda Warnings from a standard rights card which was signed by the defendant. After a brief statement, a formal taped statement was taken. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the Court reviewed that statement prior to the hearing. The defendant confessed to his involvement in the murder of Eric Schunk.

Both officers testified that the defendant was not promised or threatened to give a statement, did not appear to be under the influence of any alcohol or drugs, and that he freely and voluntarily spoke with them. After the officers took a statement from him, he was asked if he would put the statement on tape. At that point the defendant asked the officers if "they thought he should get a lawyer?" The officers responded that it was his choice. At that point the defendant [who was eighteen years old] requested to speak with his mother. She was located by the officers and given an opportunity to speak with her son alone for about a half hour. After speaking with his mother, the defendant gave a taped statement. On the tape itself the defendant stated that he understood his rights and that he was not threatened or promised anything. The defense did not present any testimony.

Based on the totality of the testimony presented and the tape recorded statement of the defendant, the Court finds that the statement given by the defendant was done so after he was properly advised of his Miranda Warnings and that it was done so freely and voluntarily. The evidence demonstrates that the defendant did not invoke his right to counsel, that his question was at best an equivocal request for counsel, and that the officers were correct in telling the defendant that whether or not he should get a lawyer was his choice. Based upon the authority of State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715 (Fla.1997), Slawson v. State, 619 So.2d 255 (Fla.1993); Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 [, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362] (1994), it is:

Ordered and adjudged that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is Denied.

(Emphasis added.)

The taped statement was admitted at trial and Glatzmayer was convicted of first-degree felony murder and attempted robbery without a firearm and was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and twelve years imprisonment, respectively. The district court reversed the convictions based on this Court's then-recent decision in Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520 (Fla.1999)¹, which was unavailable to the trial court at the time of the suppression hearing.² The district court certified the above question.

II. THE APPLICABLE LAW

Suppression issues are extraordinarily rich in diversity and run the gamut from (1) pure questions of fact,³ to (2) mixed questions of law and fact,⁴ to (3) pure questions of law.⁵ Reviewing courts must exercise care when examining such issues, for while the issues themselves may be posed in broad legal terms (e.g., whether a suspect was "in custody," whether conduct by police constituted "interrogation"), the actual ruling is often discrete and factual (e.g., whether police did in fact tell a suspect he was free to go, whether police did in fact ask a suspect if he committed the crime). Appellate courts cannot use their review powers in such cases as a mechanism for reevaluating conflicting testimony and exerting covert control over the factual findings. As with all trial court rulings, a suppression ruling comes to the reviewing court clad in a presumption of correctness as to all fact-based issues,⁶ and the proper standard of review depends on the nature of the ruling in each case.⁷ The law in Florida governing custodial utterances has undergone significant change in recent years:

This Court in Long v. State, 517 So.2d 664, 667 (Fla.1987), held that if in the course of custodial interrogation a suspect makes an utterance that may be an attempt to invoke his or her rights, police may "continue questioning for the sole purpose of clarifying the equivocal request." Subsequent to Long, the United States Supreme Court in Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 [, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362] (1994), held that if a suspect initially waives his or her rights, the suspect thereafter must clearly invoke those rights during the ensuing interview.... This Court was then faced in State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715 (Fla.1997), with the issue of whether to adopt the Davis rationale in Florida.

Almeida, 737 So.2d at 522-23 (citations omitted). The particular statements at issue in State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1997), were equivocal utterances⁸ and the Court concluded that to require police to stop an interview and clarify such statements "places too great an impediment upon society's interest in thwarting crime." Owen, 696 So.2d at 719. The Court followed Davis:

Thus, we hold that police in Florida need not ask clarifying questions if a defendant who has received proper Miranda warnings makes only an equivocal or ambiguous request to terminate an interrogation after having validly waived his or her Miranda rights.

Owen, 696 So.2d at 719.

Subsequently, the Court in Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520 (Fla.1999), was faced not with an equivocal utterance but with a clear question concerning the suspect's rights after the suspect earlier had waived his rights:

Q. All right. Prior to us going on this tape here, I read your Miranda rights to you, that is the form that I have here in front of you, is that correct? Did you understand all of these rights that I read to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you wish to speak to me now without an attorney present?

A. Well, what good is an attorney going to do?

Q. Okay, well you already spoke to me and you want to speak to me again on tape?

Q. (By Detective Allard) We are, we are just going to talk to you as we talked to you before, that is all.

A. Oh, sure.

Almeida, 737 So.2d at 522. The Court examined the legal interests at stake and concluded that no valid reason exists for not answering such a question:

No valid societal interest is served by withholding such information. Indeed, both sides can only benefit from disclosure: Disclosure ensures that any subsequent waiver will be knowing and intelligent, and it reaffirms those qualities in a prior waiver. Nondisclosure, on the other hand, is doubly harmful: It exacerbates the inherently coercive atmosphere of the interrogation session, and it places in doubt the knowing and intelligent nature of any waiver—whether prior or subsequent.

Almeida, 737 So.2d at 525 (footnote omitted). The Court ruled thusly:

Accordingly, we hold that if, at any point during custodial interrogation, a suspect asks a clear question concerning his or her rights, the officer must stop the interview and make a good-faith effort to give a simple and straightforward answer.

Almeida, 737 So.2d at 525. To the extent that officers may be uncertain how to respond to a particular question, they may— where appropriate—readvise the suspect of his or her rights.⁹

III. THE PRESENT CASE

Although the trial court below did not have the benefit of Almeida when it decided the suppression issue, this Court generally applies the law as it exists at the time the Court conducts its review.¹⁰ Almeida thus controls the present case. Application of the legal standard announced in Almeida to the trial court's findings of historical fact presents an issue that is amenable to de novo analysis by this Court.¹¹

During the suppression hearing, officers Flynn and Brand testified for the State concerning the circumstances surrounding Glatzmayer's utterance. Flynn testified as follows on direct examination:

A. We were at the end of the interview when we felt that everything had been explained, all the evidence had been explained and he had given a truthful statement. We then asked him to put it on tape.

Q. And what did he say at that time?

A. He said that he wanted to speak to his mother first.

Q. All right, did he say anything else?

A. He had no objections to it. He was ready to comply with it.

Q. Did he ever mention anything as far as an attorney?

A. No. I am sorry, he did ask if we thought he should have an attorney.

Q. Do you

...