State v. Hackett, 4D05-2798.
Decision Date | 11 October 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 4D05-2798.,4D05-2798. |
Citation | 944 So.2d 399 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Patrick James HACKETT, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Cory S. Robins of Law Office of Cory S. Robins, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.
After stopping a vehicle with a driver and two passengers, the officer issued a notice of civil traffic infraction. The purpose of the stop having been entirely fulfilled at that point, the officer nevertheless sought to lengthen the encounter by seeking permission to search the vehicle— which the driver extended. When the officer found a crack cocaine pipe, he arrested the driver for criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. He determined at that point that the two passengers were not free to leave his presence and go about their business. Continuing his search, he found a bag of cocaine. Without cautioning his suspects in the manner that has become de rigueur since Miranda, he interrogated them as to whose bag it was. Defendant confessed it was his, and he was also arrested, but for possession of cocaine.
In due course defendant moved to suppress his confession. Hearing all of the above through testimony of the officer, the trial judge agreed that the confession had been obtained in violation of Miranda. The judge explained:
His order suppressed the confession but not the drugs.
There was testimony to support each of the above statements. In particular, the officer testified that once he found the paraphernalia the occupants were no longer free to leave. At that point he was conducting a criminal investigation. In reviewing orders suppressing evidence in criminal cases, we are required to defer to the trial judge's resolution of facts and apply the law to those findings de novo. State v. Rabb, 920 So.2d 1175, 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) () (quoting Backus v. State, 864 So.2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)).
In suppressing the confession the trial judge relied on Pollard v. State, 780 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), where Judge Polen explained:
"The supreme court has clarified that Miranda warnings need to be given only when the person is in custody. Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1131 [120 S.Ct. 970, 145 L.Ed.2d 841] (2000). When determining if a defendant is in custody for purposes of Miranda, the test is whether `a reasonable person placed in the same position would believe that his or her freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with actual arrest.' Id. at 573. To determine whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would consider himself in custody, the court should consider:
(1) the manner in which police summon the suspect for questioning; (2) the purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation; (3) the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his or her guilt; (4) whether the suspect is informed that he or she is free to leave the place of questioning.
Id. at 574 (emphasis supplied)."
780 So.2d at 1017. It was only after duly considering the above that the trial court concluded under the totality of circumstances that defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda.
In Pollard it is true that the interrogation took place at the police station, and in this case it occurred in or about a stopped vehicle. Under the totality of circumstances requirement, however, that single fact is not dispositive. Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 291, 124 S.Ct. 1769, 158 L.Ed.2d 546 (2004) ( ). As the court explained in State v. Hall, 537 So.2d 171, 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989):
[c.o.]
The circumstances in Hall bear an undeniable affinity with those in this case. Officers there had been watching a parked vehicle in which they noticed a lighter being lit for extended periods. Suspecting the use of crack cocaine, they approached the vehicle and began questioning the two occupants. They told the two men that they believed there were drugs in the car. One officer asked the defendant whether there were such drugs, and he confessed that there were. The officer asked to have the drugs, and defendant handed them to the officer. In suppressing the evidence, the trial court found that defendant had been subjected to a custodial interrogation without proper cautioning. The failure to administer Miranda warnings required the suppression of the confession. Approving the trial court decision, the First...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Dixon
...deference where supported by the record, but the application of the law to these facts is considered de novo. See State v. Hackett, 944 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). In this case, there was no claim by the State, nor any testimony by the officers, to the effect that the police had the......
-
England v. State Of Fla., Case No. 2D09-2778
...to leave." Shuttleworth, 927 So. 2d at 978 (citing Ramirez v. State, 739 So. 2d 568, 574 (Fla. 1999)); see also State v. Hackett, 944 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Two of those factors support a finding that England was in custody in this case: he was not told he was free to leave, a......