State v. Merklein, 79-1692
Decision Date | 01 August 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 79-1692,79-1692 |
Citation | 388 So.2d 218 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John F. MERKLEIN and James B. Nelson, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael A. Palecki, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Fred S. Pflaum of Ginsburg, Byrd & Jones, Sarasota, for appellee Nelson.
Robert A. Farrance and Edwin T. Mulock of Mulock & Farrance, Bradenton, for appellee Merklein.
The state appeals the trial court's order suppressing appellees' confessions and tangible evidence seized from their vehicle. The court held that the officers' initial investigatory stop of appellees was proper, but that their continued detention, which resulted in probable cause for their arrest, was unreasonable. We reverse.
The state charged John F. Merklein and James B. Nelson with two counts of attempted robbery and one count of carrying a concealed weapon. Each pled not guilty and moved to suppress both their confessions and tangible evidence seized from their vehicle.
At the suppression hearing several law officers testified. From their testimony it appears that two white males, one armed with a handgun, attempted to rob Roy Campbell on Siesta Key in Sarasota County, and fled in an automobile. After interviewing the victim and several witnesses, Sarasota County Sheriff's Deputy Poole had the Sheriff's Department issue a radio bulletin for a late model blue Camaro or Firebird occupied by two white males armed with a handgun. The Department promptly dispatched other deputies to the two bridges connecting the Key to the mainland. Subsequently, the Department informed Deputy Poole that deputies had stopped at least three vehicles fitting the description on the Key. Poole transported the victim and witnesses to the locations of these stops for purposes of identification.
Approximately ten minutes after the bulletin was aired, a deputy stopped Merklein and Nelson, both white males, in a blue Firebird matching the description of the suspect vehicle on Siesta Key three or four miles from the site of the attempted robbery. Immediately after the stop another deputy arrived. The officers asked about the attempted robbery and a rifle they observed on the back seat of the car. Merklein and Nelson each denied knowledge of the attempted robbery and explained that they had been target shooting with the rifle. After Merklein and Nelson had produced identification at the deputies' request, the deputies ran a computer check on them which proved negative.
The officers then asked if there were other weapons in the car, and Merklein and Nelson answered no, but appeared to be in disagreement. The officers separated Merklein and Nelson and again asked them if there were any additional weapons in their vehicle. Merklein told Deputy Bishop that there was a handgun and knife in the car. On direct examination Deputy Bishop testified that she gave Merklein Miranda warnings before asking him about weapons the second time. On cross examination, however, she stated that she did not give the required warnings until after she had questioned him the second time. On redirect examination she emphatically stated that she gave Merklein Miranda warnings before questioning him the second time about additional weapons.
The officers detained Merklein and Nelson until Deputy Poole arrived with the victim and other witnesses some twenty to forty minutes after the stop. When they arrived, neither the victim nor the witnesses could positively identify Merklein or Nelson or their vehicle, however. At that point the officers arrested Merklein and Nelson for carrying a concealed weapon and transported them to the Sheriff's Department. There each confessed to the attempted robbery of Campbell as well...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Reid, 23642-7-II.
...47 Wash.App. at 332, 734 P.2d 966 (citing State v. Davis, 3 Conn.App. 359, 488 A.2d 837, 840 (1985); State v. Merklein, 388 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1980); People v. Hardy, 142 Ill. App.3d 108, 96 Ill.Dec. 447, 491 N.E.2d 493, 498 (1986); Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal......
-
Finney v. State, 79-1936
...arrest. State v. Lopez, 369 So.2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. Stevens, 354 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In State v. Merklein, 388 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), the court stated that: "[t]he reasonableness of an investigatory detention depends on the circumstances surrounding th......
-
State v. Guzman-Cuellar, GUZMAN-CUELLA
...if the stop confirms or arouses further suspicions. State v. Davis, 3 Conn.App. 359, 488 A.2d 837, 840 (1985); State v. Merklein, 388 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla.App.1980), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1377 (1981); People v. Hardy, 142 Ill.App.3d 108, 96 Ill.Dec. 447, 452, 491 N.E.2d 493, 498 (1986); LaF......
-
Rogers v. State
...that the appellants were detained for approximately twenty-five minutes until the canine unit arrived at the scene. State v. Merklein, 388 So.2d 218 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); see also State v. Nugent, 504 So.2d 47 (Fla.4th DCA 1987) (thirty-minute delay does not transform valid Terry stop into de ......