JOHN HINDENBERGER, 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 the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the appellant's taped statement to the police, even though it followed an unwarned portion.
Appellant made a taped statement to police after receiving Miranda warnings. He argued the entire statement was tainted by an initial unwarned portion…
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 Tainted Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting appellant’s taped statement to the police. McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1978).
Appellant made the admitted portion of the statement following full Miranda1 warnings. He argues that the whole statement was tainted by the lack of any warning during the initial portion of the interview, which portion the trial court suppressed. The victim had accused the appellant prior to the time of the statement. Appellant made all of the statements to the police voluntarily.
Although we are concerned about the motives for the investigating officer’s attempting initially to establish “rapport” with appellant prior to giving the Miranda warnings, we cannot conclude on this record that the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to suppress those portions of the statement made after warnings. Cf. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); United States v. Wauneka, 770 F. 2d 1434 (9th Cir.1985). Nor can we conclude, as appellant asserts, that the officers’ conduct rises to the level of misconduct, coercion and improper tactics found in State v. Madruga-Jiminez, 485 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
We also find no abuse of discretion or reversible error in the other issues raised.
ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur. . 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
-
State v. Manuel, 796 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…U.S. 690, 696-97, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); Harris v. State, 761 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Curtis v. State, 748 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); State v. R.M., 696 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Hindenberger v. State, 581 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). [*605] The issue in this case is whether, based on the attending convenience store clerk’s tip, Officer Ho had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop and detain appellee. Whether the police have reasonable suspicion t…
-
Wencel v. State, 737 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress statements he made [*631] concerning charges of burglary and dealing in stolen property. We affirm on the authority of Hindenberger v. State, 581 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), which held that the investigating officer’s attempt to initially establish rapport with defendant prior to giving Miranda warnings did not taint portions of defendant’s statement made after warnings were given. Similarly, in t…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985)
- McNAMARA v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1978)
- United States v. Wauneka, 770 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1985)
- State v. Madruga-Jiminez, 485 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)