DOUGLAS SCOTT, 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.
Douglas Scott appeals his second-degree arson conviction, challenging the admission of a taped statement he gave to police at the station. The court affirms, holding that police properly honored his earlier request to remain silent by waiting over an hour and a half before re-approaching him with Miranda warnings and obtaining his statement.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that assuming without deciding that Scott invoked his right to silence at the crime scene, police scrupulously honored that request by waiting over an hour and a half before re-advising Scott of his Miranda rights and questioning him about the crime.
[1] A spontaneous statement made by a suspect at the scene of arrest, before being advised of Miranda rights and not in response to questioning, is admissible.
[2] A suspect's request to cease questioning is scrupulously honored when police wait a significant period, such as an hour and a half, before re-advising of Miranda rights a…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the police "scrupulously honored" this request by waiting over an hour and a half before advising appellant of his Miranda rights and questioning the appellant about this crime”
Establishes the court's holding that the substantial time delay between invocation and renewed questioning satisfied the Mosley requirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott was taken into custody at the crime scene amid a hostile crowd and spontaneously stated he did not want to talk to anyone, before being advised …
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 Scrupulously Honored cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Douglas Scott, appeals his conviction for second-degree arson. We affirm.
When appellant was taken into custody at the scene in the midst of a hostile crowd, he spontaneously stated, “[Tjake me to jail, ’cause you are going to take me anyway. I don’t want to talk to anyone.” This statement was made before appellant had been advised of his Miranda rights and was not made in response to questions asked of the arresting officer. At the police station an hour and a half later, another officer advised appellant of his constitutional rights. Appellant indicated he understood his rights and was willing to talk. He then gave a taped statement to the police.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress his statement in violation of Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). The appellee, State, asserts, inter alia, the police “scrupulously honored” appellant’s request to cut off questioning. Assuming, without deciding, that the appellant invoked his right to silence at the scene of the crime, the police “scrupulously honored” this request by waiting over an hour and a half before advising appellant of his Miranda rights and questioning the appellant about this crime. See Muehleman v. State, 503 So. 2d 310, 313-314 (Fla.), cert, denied, 484 U.S. 882, 108 S.Ct. 39, 98 L.Ed.2d 170 (1987); State v. Chavis, 546 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (interrogation ninety minutes after the defendant said that he did not want to talk right now, while eating a sandwich, was proper), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 1046, 110 S.Ct. 845, 107 L.Ed.2d 839 (1990); Wells v. State, 540 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA) (two hour passage of time between defendant’s arrest and resumption of questioning was sufficient after repeating the Miranda warnings), review denied, 547 So. 2d 1212 (Fla.1989); McNickles v. State, 505 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA) (police scrupulously honored defendant’s right to silence where defendant was not reinterrogated until after he signed waiver of rights form, forty-five minutes from time initial questioning ceased), review denied, 515 So. 2d 230 (Fla.1987). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975)
- Muehleman v. State, 503 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1987)
- Muehleman v. Florida, 484 U.S. 882 (U.S. 1987)
- Layne et ux. v. Cnty. of San Mateo, 493 U.S. 1046 (U.S. 1990)
- Madsen v. Missouri, 493 U.S. 1046 (U.S. 1990)
- McNICKLES v. State, 505 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- State v. Chavis, 546 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Wells v. State, 540 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)