K. L. C., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed a delinquency judgment based on a minor's confession, holding that police satisfied statutory notification requirements by informing parents present at arrest and that no conference opportunity need be offered unless requested.
Police satisfy Florida's parental notification statute when parents are present at arrest and informed, and need not offer a conference opportunity unless the child or parents request one.
[1] Police satisfy the statutory requirement to notify parents of a child's arrest when parents are present at the time of arrest and informed, and have no obligation to offe…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.L.C., a 15-year-old male, was arrested at home for attempted robbery. He was Miranda-warned and confessed after questioning at police headquarters.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parental Notification cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
K.L.C., a fifteen-year-old male, appeals from a circuit court judgment that he is delinquent, having attempted to commit robbery. The judgment is based in part on K.L.C.’s confession obtained after he was appropriately Miranda -warned, immediately upon being questioned at headquarters following his arrest at home.
The trial court found, and we agree, that there was no unreasonable delay in delivering K.L.C. to an intake officer. Section 39.03(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). Nor do we find a violation of that statute’s requirement that the police, determining “that the child should be detained”, must make “a reasonable effort to immediately notify the parents . . In this case the parents were so notified because they were at home when their son was arrested. This case is unlike Dowst v. State, 336 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) and J.E.S. v. State, 366 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), in which either the child or the parents, being notified of the arrest, requested and were denied a reasonable opportunity to confer. The obligation of the arresting officers is to notify the parents and, if requested, to grant them and the child a reasonable opportunity to confer before in-custody questioning begins. The police obligation does not extend to offering a conference opportunity which is not requested.
AFFIRMED.
LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Batch v. State, 405 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…rents of his detention pursuant to Section 39.03(3), Florida Statutes (1977). We first note that his parents were at the hospital before appellant was in custody and they were told that he was being taken to the police station. Cf., K.L.C. v. State, 379 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (son arrested at home in presence of parents). Second, notification to the parents of a juvenile’s detention is not necessarily related to interrogation. It is merely to advise the parents of the juvenile’s whereabouts, and altho…
-
Donovan v. State, 400 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…e being detained and was not intended to act as an exclusionary rule for juvenile confessions. In the present case we find that Donovan’s parents were notified of his detention since they were at home when he was taken into custody. K.L.C. v. State, 379 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Therefore, his argument regarding his parents not being notified of his detention is without merit. In his second point on appeal, Donovan challenges certain portions of Officer Smith’s testimony as being impermissible comments…
Authorities Cited
- Rogert L. Dowst v. State, 336 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- J. E. S. v. State, 366 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)