State v. Vazquez
| Decision Date | 13 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2D18-5028 |
| Citation | 295 So.3d 373 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Joseph Anthony VAZQUEZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; and C. Todd Chapman, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellant.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee.
The State seeks review of the trial court's order granting Joseph Vazquez's motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement during an interview and written statements made after the interview. The State contends that Vazquez's statements were not made during a custodial interrogation and were otherwise voluntary. We agree and reverse the order suppressing Vazquez's statements, both oral and written.
In March 2017, Vazquez was charged with one count of sexual battery on a victim less than twelve years of age and one count of lewd or lascivious exhibition. In June 2018, Vazquez filed a motion to suppress statements he made during an interview with detectives from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, as well as two written statements made thereafter and identified as an apology and a suicide note. In his motion to suppress, Vazquez initially alleged that two detectives engaged in a "noncustodial interview" with Vazquez which lasted about forty-five minutes. Vazquez then asserted that "while the totality of the circumstances leads to the conclusion that the initial portion of the interview with the defendant was not custodial, the same conclusion cannot be reached regarding the entire interview." He acknowledged his admission to masturbating in the presence of the victim. Vazquez argued that despite the detectives repeatedly informing him that he was not under arrest and was free to terminate the interview at any time, the interview was custodial at that point and yet the detectives did not give Vazquez the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Vazquez also argued that statements he made during this interview should be suppressed because the detectives used unduly coercive techniques intended to compel Vazquez to acquiesce to the detectives’ version of events, rendering his statements involuntarily made. As to his written statements, Vazquez did not allege that they should be suppressed because of a Miranda violation; rather, he argued that those statements are not reliable.
At the hearing on the motion, the lead detective who conducted the interview testified. He stated that he and his partner arrived at Vazquez's home late in the afternoon. Vazquez's mother was home and walked the detectives into the house to meet with Vazquez. Vazquez then took the detectives to the porch where they sat with Vazquez for the interview. The lead detective believed that Vazquez was coherent and understood the questions posed to him. According to the lead detective, Vazquez was not placed in handcuffs at any point during the interview, the detectives did not otherwise restrain or place their hands on Vazquez, and they did not approach Vazquez in an intimidating manner. The lead detective testified that Vazquez denied knowing the victim and that Vazquez's responses to the detective's initial questions directed the tenor of the interview. The lead detective further testified that neither the apology nor the suicide note were written during the interview or in the presence of law enforcement and that they were not written at the request of the detectives. The audio recording of the interview was admitted into evidence.
Dr. Scot Machlus, a psychologist and expert in "the ability to waive Miranda and susceptibility to false confessions" testified for the defense. Dr. Machlus had reviewed the recorded interview with Vazquez and was familiar with the two written documents. He had also evaluated Vazquez in order to give an opinion as to Vazquez's susceptibility to giving a false confession and as to the reliability of Vazquez's statements. Dr. Machlus testified that the detectives used leading questions, repeated the same information, and demonstrated an investigator bias in interviewing Vazquez. These techniques, according to Dr. Machlus, have been shown to increase the probability of false confessions and affect the reliability of statements. Dr. Machlus also testified that Vazquez provided information to the detectives independent of what the detectives had presented to him and that throughout the entire interview Vazquez maintained that he did not engage in sex with the victim.
On December 12, 2018, the trial court rendered its written order granting Vazquez's motion and suppressing all statements. The court detailed the evidence presented at the hearing and the facts as established in the audio recording of the interview. The court noted that it was approximately seven minutes into the forty-five-minute interview that Vazquez admitted to masturbating in the presence of the victim; that even after the admission, no Miranda warnings had been given; and that the lead detective testified that he did not give the warnings because Vazquez was still free to leave or discontinue the interview. The court related that the detectives refused to believe Vazquez's denial of sex with the victim and that "[e]ventually," although the court did not provide at what minute, Vazquez began agreeing with the detectives’ factual assertions and he ultimately admitted to the sexual battery.
The trial court determined that Vazquez was interrogated and that although the interrogation began as noncustodial, it quickly became custodial and required Miranda warnings to have been given. Although the court did not provide at what point the interrogation became custodial, it specifically determined that Miranda warnings should have been administered after Vazquez admitted to the lewd or lascivious exhibition. But it also found the interrogation as a whole to have been one that a reasonable person would not have felt free to discontinue. The court also suppressed the apology and suicide note as "fruit of the poisonous tree"—the interrogation.
The same day that the court rendered its order, the State filed a motion for clarification. The State was particularly concerned with the basis upon which the court suppressed the lewd or lascivious exhibition admission and the written statements. The court granted the motion in part, clarifying that the order suppressed all statements but providing no further details or discussion.
We review a suppression order under a mixed standard: we are bound by the trial court's factual findings if they are supported by competent substantial evidence, and we review de novo the trial court's determination of legal issues. Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 806 (Fla. 2002). Our record contains the recording of Vazquez's interview, and we "may independently review the audio recording of an interview to assess whether competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings." State v. Thompson, 193 So. 3d 916, 919-20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Cuervo v. State, 967 So. 2d 155, 160 (Fla. 2007) ); see also Almeida v. State, 737 So. 2d 520, 524 n.9 (Fla. 1999) (). Where the facts are undisputed or the trial court's factual findings are supported, whether a person was in custody such that Miranda warnings were necessary is a legal determination that we review de novo. State v. Herrera, 201 So. 3d 192, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Thomas v. State, 894 So. 2d 126, 136 (Fla. 2004) ); State v. Figueroa, 139 So. 3d 365, 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
"Interrogation occurs when a state agent asks questions or engages in actions that a reasonable person would conclude are intended to lead to an incriminating response." State v. McAdams, 193 So. 3d 824, 833 (Fla. 2016) (citing Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957, 966 n.17 (Fla. 1992) ). An interrogation must be custodial before Miranda warnings are necessary; the warnings apply only when the individual being questioned is both "in custody and under interrogation." Thompson, 193 So. 3d at 920 (quoting Davis v. State, 698 So. 2d 1182, 1188 (Fla. 1997) ). "Absent one or the other, Miranda warnings are not required." Id. (quoting Davis, 698 So. 2d at 1188 ). "Failure to provide the Miranda warnings prior to custodial interrogation generally requires exclusion from trial of any post-custody statements given." McAdams, 193 So. 3d at 833 (citing Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) ).
Custody is "a heavily fact dependent" determination, involving a two-fold inquiry which requires the court to consider "(1) the ‘circumstances surrounding the interrogation;’ and (2) ‘given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.’ " Id. (quoting Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403, 415 (Fla. 2010) ). "To evaluate how a ‘reasonable person’ in [the defendant's] position would have perceived the situation, we consider the four factors set forth in Ramirez[ v. State], 739 So. 2d [568, 574 (Fla. 1999) ]." Wilson v. State, 242 So. 3d 484, 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). Those factors are:
(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. (quoting Ramirez, 739 So. 2d at 574 ).
It is clear that the interview with Vazquez was an interrogation; the questions asked by the detectives were clearly intended to lead to incriminating...
To continue reading
Request your trial