STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CLIFFORD DEVILLE, 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 order suppressing statements made by the defendant after he invoked his right to counsel. The court held that once a suspect requests counsel during custodial interrogation, all questioning must cease regardless of whether it concerns a different offense or is conducted by a different officer unaware of the prior request.
A suspect's invocation of the right to counsel applies to all interrogation until counsel is made available, regardless of whether subsequent questioning concerns a different offense or is conducted by an officer unaware of the prior request. Once counsel is requested, all questioning must cease unless the suspect himself initiates further communication.
[1] A suspect who requests counsel is not subject to further interrogation until counsel is made available, unless the suspect initiates further communication.
[2] A law enforcement officer's unawareness of a suspect's prior request for counsel does not excuse further interrogation.
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“A suspect who requests counsel is not subject to further interrogation until counsel is made available to him, unless the suspect himself initiates further communication.”
Establishes the foundational rule from Edwards v. Arizona governing the scope of the right to counsel protection.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeVille was arrested for burglary after his van was traced to the crime scene. During questioning by Polk County Sheriff's officers about the burglary…
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 Initiation Of Further Communication cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The state appeals from the order granting the appellee’s motion to suppress statements and admissions. We affirm.
A van parked at the scene of a burglary was traced to the appellee, Clifford De-Ville, through a license plate check. As a result, the appellee was arrested for the burglary of a business. At the time of his arrest officers from the Polk County Sheriff’s Office checked the vehicle identification number on the appellee’s van and discovered that the van was stolen. While the stolen van was being investigated the appellee was given Miranda warnings by a Polk County detective. The appellee requested an attorney, and the detective ceased questioning. The appellee was then transported to a Polk County substation, and since the theft of the van was a Lake-land Police Department case, the Lakeland police were notified that the appellee was in custody. Approximately an hour later a detective from the Lakeland Police Department questioned the appellee about the stolen van. The Lakeland detective was not informed by the Polk County detective that the appellee had requested an attorney after being taken into custody for the burglary. The appellee was given Miranda warnings a second time; however, instead of repeating his request for an attorney, he made several statements concerning his acquisition of the van.
The appellee was charged with burglary and grand theft. He moved to have his statements made at the station suppressed on the ground that they were taken in violation of his right to counsel under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). The appellee’s motion was granted by the trial court.
On appeal the state argues that the appellee’s invocation of his right to counsel applied only to the investigation of the burglary and was not violated by the Lake-land detective’s subsequent questioning about a different offense, the grand theft. We disagree.
A suspect who requests counsel is not subject to further interrogation until counsel is made available to him, unless the suspect himself initiates further communication. Edwards; Eight v. State, 512 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1987). It is no defense that the officer conducting the subsequent interrogation is not aware of the suspect’s prior request for counsel. Anderson v. State, 487 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The appellee’s arrest for burglary and grand theft occurred in the same chain of events, and the appellee was aware , that he was being investigated for both crimes at the time he requested an attorney. Therefore, the invocation of his right to counsel was in effect as to both crimes. Once the appellee requested an attorney all questioning should have ceased until an attorney was made available to him. All statements the appellee made after the law enforcement officer reinitiated questioning were properly suppressed.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting the appellee’s motion to suppress is affirmed.
DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981)
- Kight v. State, 512 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1987)
- Anderson v. State, 487 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)