THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ISRAEL MARTIN PADRON, 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 State appealed a trial court's orders suppressing both physical evidence (marijuana and a submachine gun) and statements made by defendant Padrón following his arrest. The Third District Court of Appeal held that the search incident to arrest was valid under New York v. Belton, but that Padrón's statements were properly suppressed because he had invoked his Sixth Amendment right to counsel before further interrogation by Metro Dade officers.
The search incident to arrest was valid and the physical evidence should not have been suppressed. However, because Padrón invoked his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the trial court properly suppressed his subsequent statements made to Metro Dade officers, as further custodial interrogation was prohibited under Edwards v. Arizona.
[1] A search of a vehicle's interior compartment incident to a lawful arrest is valid, even if officers classify the action as an inventory search.
[2] Once a defendant invokes their right to counsel, further custodial interrogation is prohibited.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the validity of the search as incident to the arrest is unaffected by the fact that the police officers classified their actions as an inventory search”
Establishes that the physical evidence search was valid under Belton, supporting reversal of the suppression order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIsrael Padrón, a Spanish speaker, was validly stopped for a traffic infraction and arrested for failing to produce his motor vehicle registration and …
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 Invocation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*645] JORGENSON, Judge.
The State of Florida appeals from the trial court’s orders granting the defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence and the defendant’s motion to suppress statements. For the reasons which follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
The essential facts are not in dispute. Israel Padrón concedes that he was validly stopped for a traffic infraction and, thereafter, arrested for failure to produce his motor vehicle registration and driver’s license.1 Padrón spoke only Spanish. The arresting officer had only a limited knowledge of Spanish. Following his arrest, the interior compartment of Padron’s vehicle was searched, including the contents of a black cloth suitcase located behind the driver’s seat. Inside the suitcase were five plastic bags containing marijuana and a Mac-10 submachine gun, together with a silencer, magazine and cartridges. Thereafter, Padrón was transported to the Coral Gables police station and given his Miranda warnings by a Spanish-speaking officer. Padrón indicated that he did not wish to give a statement without an attorney being present. The Coral Gables officers terminated their questioning of the defendant at that time.
Officers of the Coral Gables police department then contacted the Metro Dade police department to see if anyone at that agency wished to speak to the defendant. The county police authorities indicated that they did wish to talk to Padrón about the firearms violation and certain other crimes, and he was subsequently transported to Metro Dade police headquarters where a Coral Gables officer advised the county officers that the defendant, Padrón, had invoked his sixth amendment right-to-counsel privilege. Notwithstanding these advices, the county officers re-advised Padrón of his Miranda rights, after which he made certain oral and written statements.
The state first argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress the physical evidence. We agree and consequently reverse that order. We have recently considered this issue in a case with strikingly similar facts. See State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Relying on New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), Judge Daniel Pearson, speaking for the court in Valdes, held that “the validity of the search as incident to the arrest is unaffected by the fact that the police officers classified their actions as an inventory search.” Valdes, 423 So. 2d at 944. See also United States v. Ross, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); Savoie v. State, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1982).
The trial court correctly granted Padron’s motion to suppress statements. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The state’s reliance on Michigan v. Moseley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975), is misplaced. Moseley does not deal with the sixth amendment right-to-eounsel. Stone v. State, 378 So. 2d 765 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986, 101 S.Ct. 407, 66 L.Ed.2d 250 (1980), and Tuff v. State, 408 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA), petition for review denied, 413 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982), are equally inapposite. Once a defendant invokes his right to counsel, further custodial interrogation is prohibited. Edwards, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378; Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Harris v. State, 396 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See also United States v. Hinckley, 672 F. 2d 115 (D.C.Cir.1982).
For the reasons previously advanced, the order granting the motion to suppress physical evidence is reversed, the order granting the motion to suppress statements is affirmed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
. There is no issue with respect to the validity of the arrest.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 449 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…of his rights. No Florida case seems to have considered this precise question, and those which have applied the Edwards teaching to find that statements were illegally obtained are easily distinguishable on their [*886] facts. See State v. Padron, 425 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (continuous custody); Silling v. State, 414 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (continuous custody, same offense); Porter v. State, 410 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (continuous custody, same offense). We hold that Edwards is not ap…1 / 2
-
State v. Wilfredo Navarro and Roerme Navarro, 464 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ccess to it, New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); Savoie v. State, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1982); Bond v. State, 431 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Brock, 426 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); State v. Padron, 425 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the search of the vehicle which revealed a nine-millimeter MAC-10 and another nine-millimeter [*140] Browning was lawful, even if, as the trial court found, it was non-consensua…
-
Padron v. State, 449 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1984)…BOYD, Justice. This cause is before the Court on petition for review of the decision of the district court of appeal in State v. Padron, 425 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We granted review on the jurisdictional ground of conflict of decisions. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. A police officer stopped petitioner Israel Padrón after noticing that the vehicle inspection certificate on the car Padrón w…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975)
- THE Florida BAR v. Schell, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1982)
- Stone v. State, 378 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1979)
- Dankert v. Georgia, 449 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1980)
- Jewell v. United States, 449 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1980)
- United States v. Hinckley, 672 F.2d 115 (D.C. Cir. 1982)