State v. McAdams

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: LEWIS, J.
• Citation: State v. McAdams, 193 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 2016)
• Decision Date: 21 April 2016
• Docket Number: SC14–826.,Nos. SC14–788,s. SC14–788
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Michael Lindsey McADAMS, Respondent. Michael Lindsey McAdams, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent.

193 So.3d 824

STATE of Florida, Petitioner,

v.Michael Lindsey McADAMS, Respondent.

Michael Lindsey McAdams, Petitioner,

v.State of Florida, Respondent.

Nos. SC14–788

SC14–826.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 21, 2016.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL; John M. Klawikofsky, Bureau Chief, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Petitioner/Cross–Respondent.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and William Larocque Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, FL, for Respondent/Cross–Petitioner.

LEWIS, J.

This matter is before the Court for review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in McAdams v. State, 137 So.3d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). In its decision, the district court ruled upon a question that it certified to be of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

FACTS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Pasco County Sheriff's Office was notified that Lynda McAdams (Lynda), the estranged wife of Respondent/Cross–Petitioner Michael McAdams (McAdams), and her boyfriend/coworker, William Andrews (Andrews), had been reported missing by concerned family members. On October 21, 2009, a detective responded to Lynda's home on Palomino Lake Drive in Dade City and, after observing her truck parked at the residence, conducted a welfare check at the house. He found the door unlocked and walked through the residence. No one was present.

During the welfare check, the detective observed that the lid of the washing machine was open and a substance that appeared to be blood could be seen on the rim. Blood-stained clothing was inside the washing machine. The detective also observed latex gloves in the kitchen, along with rolls of duct tape. He departed the residence and notified a supervisor of his observations. McAdams was contacted, and he gave written consent for a search of the Palomino Lake Drive home.¹ During the search, in addition to other items of interest, there appeared to be blood spatter on a wall, blood was discovered on clothing, and a bedroom door evidenced what appeared to be a bullet hole. A projectile was later recovered from the wall.

A different detective entered McAdams's separate residence in Spring Hill to perform a welfare check there with the consent of McAdams's father. When the detective walked through the garage, he observed a pair of blue-jean shorts that appeared to have blood on them. Further, a broken cell phone was found on a night stand and McAdams's father stated that it did not belong to McAdams. Law enforcement subsequently obtained a search warrant for the Spring Hill home. The warrant was executed at approximately 2:22 a.m. on October 23, and McAdams was not present. The shorts, a grey shirt, and a black belt were seized.

Later that morning, a detective with the Hernando County Sheriff's Office approached McAdams in the driveway of the Spring Hill home and asked if he would be willing to come to the sheriff's office to speak with detectives. McAdams understood that the detective was there because Lynda was missing and replied that he wanted to help. McAdams rode to the sheriff's office in the back of a deputy's vehicle, but he was not handcuffed.² The detective specifically informed McAdams that he was not under arrest.

Upon his arrival at the Hernando County Sheriff's Office, McAdams was escorted to an interview room where he met with Pasco County Detectives Christensen and Arey. The encounter at the sheriff's office between McAdams and the detectives began at 11:55 a.m., and the interview was recorded in its entirety. During the majority of the interview, McAdams maintained that he did not know what happened to Lynda or Andrews. However, at 2:27:15 p.m., while McAdams was in the room with only Detective Arey, he commenced a confession in which he admitted that he fatally shot Lynda and Andrews on October 18, 2009. McAdams also confessed that he buried the bodies and discarded the weapon off a bridge. At 2:42:07 p.m., Detective Arey read McAdams the Miranda³ warnings. After receiving the warnings, McAdams continued to speak with Detective Arey, and he subsequently directed law enforcement to the bodies.

At 2:04 p.m., while McAdams was being interrogated by the Pasco County detectives in the Hernando office, and before the confession commenced, an attorney retained by McAdams's parents arrived at that office. After determining that McAdams was being interrogated in the building, the deputy at the counter advised the attorney that it would not be possible to convey any information to the location where McAdams was being questioned by any means, including e-mail, telephone, a knock on the door, or even a note slipped under the door. Although the attorney stated:

I want all questioning to stop. I don't want anymore [sic] questioning to go on without my presence.

he was not allowed to see or otherwise communicate with McAdams in any manner. Facing that insurmountable obstacle, the attorney departed from the sheriff's office at 2:17 p.m., just ten minutes before McAdams commenced his confession. McAdams was first informed about the presence of the attorney only after he directed the detectives to the burial site. On November 10, 2009, McAdams was indicted on two counts of first-degree murder.

McAdams subsequently filed a motion to suppress any statements made to law enforcement, any evidence obtained as a result of those statements, and any audio or video evidence that resulted from those statements.⁴ McAdams asserted that he was in custody when he was questioned by Detectives Arey and Christensen, and they failed to read him the Miranda warnings. McAdams also contended that he was improperly denied access to his attorney, who was actually at the sheriff's office while he was being interrogated.

During the hearing on the motion to suppress, Detective Christensen outlined the reason the attorney was not allowed to see or speak with McAdams:

DEFENSE COUNSEL: What did they tell you as far as this lawyer in the lobby of the Hernando County Sheriff's Office?

CHRISTENSEN: I was told that an attorney came up wanting to speak with Mr. McAdams. And we discussed the situation about just an attorney showing up. And that—

DEFENSE COUNSEL: What did they tell you about the attorney, anything specific that you recall?

CHRISTENSEN: I don't remember. I don't even know who the attorney was.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Did they tell you that the attorney wanted to speak to Mr. McAdams and that he wanted the questioning to stop?

CHRISTENSEN: I believe so. But I know there was an attorney present, that he wanted to speak with Mr. McAdams, and I decided that the attorney wasn't going to have access to Mr. McAdams.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And why is that?

CHRISTENSEN: Because he wasn't under arrest, and Mr. McAdams never requested for an attorney.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: If he's not under arrest, why not let him talk to his attorney?

CHRISTENSEN: Because there was no need to. I did not have to have him have access to Mr. McAdams.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And that was your call ... or someone else?

CHRISTENSEN: It was ultimately my call.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And why not tell McAdams that his lawyer is out there?

CHRISTENSEN: I didn't have to.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And what makes you think that you didn't have to, based on what?

CHRISTENSEN: Because he was not in custody. He came there on his own free will to discuss the disappearance of his wife. And at that time he didn't confess to anything.

(Emphasis supplied.)

The trial court denied the motion to suppress on both the Miranda basis and the failure of law enforcement to notify McAdams with regard to the presence of the attorney for him. With regard to the Miranda claim, the trial court considered the four-factor test approved in Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla.1999),⁵ to provide guidance to courts in determinations as to whether an individual is in custody, which would require the warnings to be read. The court concluded that McAdams was in custody only when Detective Arey read the Miranda warnings and placed him under arrest.

With regard to the failure to advise McAdams of the attorney who had been retained by his parents and appeared at the sheriff's office, the trial court considered Haliburton v. State, 514 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1987) (Haliburton II ), in which this Court reversed murder and burglary convictions and ordered a new trial where the defendant gave a statement while an attorney who had been retained on the defendant's behalf was at the police station requesting to speak with him. Id. at 1089. The trial court concluded that Haliburton II was distinguishable:

In this case the attorney was long gone by the time that defendant was in custody. And there was no evidence even that the defendant had any idea that he had had—that someone had retained an attorney for him, no evidence of that whatsoever. And that in reading the Supreme Court cases, there seems to be some distinguishable facts as to whether or not Haliburton, the holding in Haliburton of suppression should be applied here.

After a jury trial, during which the video of the interview was played, McAdams was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and sentences. McAdams, 137 So.3d at 408. The district court agreed with the trial court that McAdams was not in custody when he initially confessed to the murders. Id. at 407. The district court noted that Haliburton II involved a custodial interrogation, and declined to hold that a refusal by law enforcement officers to interrupt an interview to allow an attorney access to a client who has voluntarily agreed to speak with police constitutes misconduct. However, the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:

DOES AN ADULT SUSPECT WHO IS NOT IN CUSTODY BUT VOLUNTARILY ENGAGES IN A LENGTHY INTERVIEW IN AN INTERROGATION ROOM AT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICE HAVE A DUE PROCESS

RIGHT TO

...