IN THE INTEREST OF S.T.N., 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 held that police were not obligated to re-advise a defendant of his Miranda rights when he began discussing a different crime after an initial warning.
The defendant was arrested for larceny and advised of his Miranda rights. He then began discussing a second, different larceny, and the defense argued…
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 Dispositive Ruling cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
When this case was last before us,1 we declined to review the order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress because the trial court, when it accepted the defendant’s plea of nolo contendere, failed to declare that its ruling in the suppression hearing was dispositive of the case. Thus, we remanded the case to the trial court which, after a hearing, determined that its suppression ruling was dispositive. Accordingly, we resume jurisdiction.
Pursuant to Rule 8.130(b)(3), Fla.R. Juv.P., defense counsel filed a motion to suppress oral statements and physical evidence. In accord with the rule of procedure and the dictates of State v. Butterfield, 285 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), the motion contained a statement of the reasons for suppression plus a general statement of the facts on which the motion was based. This is significant because it defined the issue for resolution by the trial court.
Essentially, the motion asserted that the evidence should be suppressed because the police failed to readvise the defendant of his Miranda2 rights when, according to the defense, the police were obligated to do so. The facts in the motion indicated that the defendant had been arrested for larceny and had been advised of his Miranda rights. Thereupon, the defendant began to talk about a different larceny. The defense contended that the police were obligated to stop the defendant and readvise him of his Miranda rights as they pertained to the second larceny. We know of no authority for such a proposition. Accordingly, the order on appeal is
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY, LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur. . In re S.T.N., 474 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivera v. State, 547 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…arrived at the police station and again during the polygraph test does not render his confession admissible, as those warnings only related to admissions as to the incident the police were concerned with — Staci Jazvac. However, in S.T.N. v. State, 484 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), where the defendant was arrested for larceny, advised of his Miranda rights, and began to talk about a different larceny, this court rejected the defendant’s argument that the police were obligated to stop him and re-advise him…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- In the Interest of S.T.N. v. State, 474 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Alton H. Littlefield v. Littlefield, 285 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- State v. Butterfield, 285 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)