THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID ANDREW FAVALORO, 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.
Florida appealed a trial court's suppression of evidence obtained from a search where the defendant's consent was allegedly induced by an implied promise of non-prosecution. The appellate court affirmed the suppression, holding that consent obtained through such implied promises violates constitutional protections against involuntary confessions and searches.
The court affirmed the trial court's determination that the consent was not voluntary. Consent obtained through implied promises of leniency, non-prosecution, or similar inducements is involuntary and must be suppressed, consistent with principles that require confessions and searches to be free from direct or implied promises.
[1] Consent to a search is not voluntary when induced by an implied promise of non-prosecution.
[2] A confession must be free and voluntary, not obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A confession must be free and voluntary; not obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight”
Establishes the fundamental constitutional requirement that consent and confessions cannot be procured through implied promises of any kind
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court found, after assessing the totality of circumstances, that the appellee's consent to a search was not voluntary but was induced by an …
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 Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
After an assessment of the totality of the circumstances, Royer v. State, 389 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Taylor v. State, 355 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), The trial court determined that appellee’s consent to a search was not voluntary, but instead was induced by an implied promise that he would not be prosecuted. Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed.2d 568 (1897) [A confession must be free and voluntary; not obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight]; Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1958) [confessions must be excluded if obtained by declarations calculated to delude defendant as to his true position]; Foreman v. State, 400 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) [officer’s statement that the victim was inclined not to prosecute if property were returned clearly constitutes an implied promise calculated to induce a confession]; Hawthorne v. State, 377 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) [confession invalid where officer told defendant her giving a statement would eliminate need for further harsh questioning of separately held children]; Fillinger v. State, 349 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) [confession induced by promises of leniency was invalid]; cf. Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341, 83 S.Ct. 448, 9 L.Ed.2d 357, reh. denied, 372 U.S. 950, 83 S.Ct. 931, 9 L.Ed.2d 975 (1963) [admission of fraudulent disclosures made as a product of an unlawful inducement do not offend the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment]. Findings made by a trial judge on a motion to suppress must be accepted, where as here the record reveals evidence to support the findings. State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Affirmed.
JORGENSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I see no difference between the facts presented here and those presented in United States v. Setzer, 654 F. 2d 354 (5th Cir.1981). While it is true that we are bound by the factual findings made by the trial judge during the course of the motion to suppress, we are not bound by the legal conclusions drawn from those facts. State v. Riocabo, 372 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed, 378 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1979).
In my view the inculpatory statement, i.e., the admission by the defendant that he possessed a quantity of contraband, furnished probable cause for his arrest, subsequent search and the lawful seizure of one-half pound of cocaine.
I would, therefore, reverse the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress and remand this case for trial. See State v. Beck, 390 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), petition for review denied, 399 So. 2d 1140 (Fla.1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wilfredo Navarro and Roerme Navarro, 464 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…Law, the Defendants’ Motion to Suppress is granted. In reviewing the findings of a trial judge on a motion to suppress, the findings must be accepted by the appellate court if the record reveals evidence to support the findings. State v. Favaloro, 424 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We have concluded that the State has failed to show reversible error on this record, therefore the order appealed is affirmed. Affirmed.…1 / 2
-
State v. Brown, 592 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…o. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Dooley v. State, 501 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. Guerra, 455 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 461 So. 2d 114 (Fla.1985); State v. Garcia, 431 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Favaloro, 424 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Melendez, 392 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ponder v. State, 323 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); State v. Thomas, 212 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968); Cameron v. Sta…
-
Prudence F. Williams v. State, 441 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…h originates from defendant’s own apprehensions will not invalidate a confession). On the other hand, proof of brutality, Porter v. State, 410 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), or promises not to prosecute if the defendant confesses, State v. Favaloro, 424 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); In Interest of K.H., 418 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 430 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1983); Brown v. State, 413 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Henthorne v. State, 409 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), will vitiate a confessi…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1897)
- Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1963)
- Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1958)
- Taylor v. State, 355 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Royer v. State, 389 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Fillinger v. State, 349 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Williams v. State, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Hawthorne v. State, 377 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- State v. Riocabo, 372 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)