STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT SHERROD, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that de fendant was in custody, but not given a Miranda1 warning before admitting, in response to a question from the officer, that he had drug paraphernalia in his pocket. We reverse.
Defendant was stopped for riding a bicycle at night without proper reflectors and, after being asked by the deputy whether he had weapons or drugs on him, responded that he had drug paraphernalia, which he handed to the deputy. The trial court granted the motion to suppress because it concluded that defendant was not free to leave and that this required a Miranda warning before questioning. The court reasoned that this was the equivalent of custodial interrogation; however, we agree with the state that there was nothing which occurred during this valid stop which would have transformed it into a custodial interrogation. Reversed.
STEVENSON and MAY, 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. Hinman, 100 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ant “by the deputy whether he had weapons or drugs on him,” followed by the defendant’s admission that he had drug paraphernalia, and a voluntary surrender of them to the deputy, did not transform it into a custodial interrogation. State v. Sherrod, 893 So. 2d 654, 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).3 Similarly, in Hewitt v. State, 920 So. 2d 802, 803-04 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), a drug patrol officer, with four or five other officers of the drug patrol unit present, legally stopped the defendant’s car for a traffic violati…
-
State v. Janusheske, 111 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…violation when defendant admitted to possessing “weed” in response to officer asking “if she had a gun, knives or drugs on her person” during a lawful traffic stop because defendant was not in custody when the question was asked); State v. Sherrod, 893 So. 2d 654, 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that a deputy’s preliminary question to a defendant inquiring as to whether he “had weapons or drugs on him” did not transform a lawful bicycle stop into a custodial interrogation). Accordingly, we reverse the supp…
-
Santiago v. State, 246 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Hinman, 100 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ; State v. Sherrod, 893 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ; State v. Stone, 889 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)