THOMAS BUSH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Thomas Bush appeals his convictions for first degree murder, robbery, and burglary, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements and claiming discovery violations. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no discovery violation and no illegal arrest that would taint Bush's statements, as he voluntarily consented to go to the police station.
There was no discovery violation and no illegal arrest that would taint Bush's statements. Bush's voluntary consent to go to the police station negated any Fourth Amendment violation, and the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress.
[1] A defendant's consent to accompany police to a station for questioning, under the circumstances, does not constitute an illegal arrest that would taint subsequent stateme…
[2] A trial court's suppression of a pre-Miranda warning statement, made out of an abundance of caution, does not establish that the defendant was in custodial arrest at that…
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“With regard to the fourth amendment issue, it is uncontroverted on this record that Bush consented to go to the police station to answer questions in connection with the police investigation. Under the circumstances, there was no illegal arrest which would taint Bush's statements.”
Establishes the court's key holding that voluntary consent to police questioning negates Fourth Amendment violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBush was asked to go to the police station to answer questions in connection with a police investigation and consented to do so. The trial court suppr…
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 Custodial Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Bush appeals his convictions for first degree murder, robbery, and burglary. We conclude that there was no discovery violation, see Mapps v. State, 520 So. 2d 92, 94 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 528 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1988); Denny v. State, 404 So. 2d 824, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and thus the trial court did not err with respect to Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). With regard to the fourth amendment issue, it is uncontroverted on this record that Bush consented to go to the police station to answer questions in connection with the police investigation. Un der the circumstances, there was no illegal arrest which would taint Bush’s statements. See Roman v. State, 475 So. 2d 1228, 1231 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1090, 106 S.Ct. 1480, 89 L.Ed.2d 734 (1986); see also Mapps v. State, 520 So. 2d at 94. The cases Bush principally relies on, Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979), and B.S. v. State, 548 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), are factually dissimilar and not controlling here. The fact that the trial court felt there was an articulable suspicion with respect to Bush does not negate the voluntariness of Bush’s conduct. The trial judge’s suppression of one pre-Miranda
*
warning statement, which was evidently done in an abundance of caution, does not on this record constitute the functional equivalent of a finding that Bush was at that time under custodial arrest. Insofar as the one statement is concerned, Bush may have been the recipient of a favorable ruling to which he was not strictly entitled, but the denial of the balance of the motion to suppress was entirely correct.
Affirmed.
*
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
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1979)
- Roman v. State, 475 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1985)
- Blanks v. Georgia, 475 U.S. 1090 (U.S. 1986)
- Southland News Co., Inc. v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 475 U.S. 1090 (U.S. 1986)
- B.S. v. State, 548 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Mapps v. State, 520 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Denny v. State, 404 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)