THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CALVIN JOHNSON, 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 appeals a trial court order suppressing a defendant's confession. The court affirms the suppression because police violated Miranda rights by interrogating the defendant in custody without warnings and by using coercive tactics that tainted both the unwarned statement and a subsequent warned statement.
The court affirmed the suppression order, holding that the confession was properly suppressed because police obtained the unwarned statement through coercive and improper tactics, and those coercive influences continued throughout all subsequent statements, making them all inadmissible. The court distinguished this case from Oregon v. Elstad, where the unwarned statement was voluntary.
[1] A custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings before questioning can commence.
[2] A confession obtained through coercive tactics is inadmissible, even if Miranda warnings are subsequently given.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Upon his arrival, Detective Buchman took Defendant JOHNSON into the interview or interrogation room and closed the door. At this time, Defendant JOHNSON was in a custodial type setting thereby requiring any police officer to advise him of his Miranda warnings before commencing any interrogation.”
Establishes that Johnson was in custody and that Miranda warnings were required before interrogation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 1, 1984, Johnson became the sole suspect in a case. After Detective Buchman made numerous interview attempts, Johnson explicitly refused to s…
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 Voluntary Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a state appeal from the following order suppressing the defendant’s confession:
1. Defendant, JOHNSON, became the only suspect in this cause on or about the 1st day of April, 1984.
2. After Detective Buchman made numerous attempts to interview the defendant, CALVIN JOHNSON, in no uncertain terms advised this detective that he would not talk to him on April 17, 1984.
3. Detective Buchman was aware that Defendant JOHNSON would be coming to the Metro-Dade Police Department on the 27th day of April, 1984.
4. Upon his arrival, Detective Buchman took Defendant JOHNSON into the interview or interrogation room and closed the door. At this time, Defendant JOHNSON was in a custodial type setting thereby requiring any police officer to advise him of his Miranda warnings before commencing any interrogation.
5. Detective Buchman never advised the defendant of his Miranda warnings before commencing this interrogation.
6. Defendant’s wife, Judith Johnson, was in the room crying during this interrogation, and the Defendant was prevented from going over and seeing her. 7. There were coercive influences attendant upon the initial confession and this coercion continued throughout the subsequent confessions.
8. There was deliberate coercion and improper tactics used by the police department in obtaining both the unwarned statement and the statement obtained af ter the defendant was advised of his Miranda warnings.
9. There was no break in the stream of events between the unwarned statement and the statement obtained from the defendant after the Miranda warnings were given.
10. This Court has reviewed the case of Oregon v. Elstad, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) and the facts in that case are clearly distinguishable from this cause. In that cause, the unwarned statement obtained from El-stad was voluntary. In this case, defendant JOHNSON’S unwarned statement was obtained by coercive and improper tactics which continued throughout all of the defendant’s statements.
The order is affirmed on the authority of State v. Madruga-Jimenez, 485 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); cf. Pressley v. State, 469 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (Sharp, J., dissenting).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985)
- State v. Madruga-Jiminez, 485 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Atwood v. State, 469 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)