ROBERT T. LUNDBERG, 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.
Robert Lundberg appeals his convictions for attempted sexual battery and lewd/lascivious molestation, challenging the trial court's admission of his taped conversation with his girlfriend recorded in a police interview room after a coercive interrogation. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statements were sufficiently attenuated from the initial illegality and not obtained through exploitation of the coercive interrogation.
The court held that the statements to his girlfriend were not fruit of the poisonous tree because they were sufficiently attenuated from the initial illegality. The statements were made at Lundberg's insistence, were voluntary, and were not coerced by interrogation. The court did not address the privacy expectation argument as it was not preserved for appeal.
[1] Statements made by a defendant to a third party are not considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" if they are sufficiently attenuated from an initial illegality and not ob…
[2] A defendant's voluntary statements to a girlfriend, made at the defendant's insistence after an interrogation, are sufficiently attenuated from any prior police coercion.
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“We need not hold that all evidence is 'fruit of the poisonous tree' simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is 'whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.'”
Establishes the proper legal standard for fruit of the poisonous tree analysis, focusing on exploitation rather than mere causation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice questioned Lundberg at the station regarding allegations he sexually abused a child. Although Lundberg waived Miranda rights and made incrimina…
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 Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
The defendant appeals his convictions for attempted sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation. He contends that the trial court erred in admitting his taped conversation with his girlfriend in a police interview room. We affirm..
After the police were informed of allegations that the defendant sexually abused a child, the defendant voluntarily went to the police station to discuss the allegations with a detective. The defendant waived his Miranda rights and began making incriminating statements. At the end of the interrogation, the interrogating officer arrested the defendant and informed him of the charges he would face. The defendant then asked to see his girlfriend before he left for jail. The police brought the defendant’s girlfriend to the interview room, but surreptitiously tape recorded the defendant’s conversation with his girlfriend.
Before trial, the court suppressed the statements that the defendant made to the police, finding that his statements had been coerced because the interrogating officer told the defendant that he could face the death penalty. However, the trial court declined to suppress any statements the defendant made to his girlfriend in the police interview room after the interrogation was over. On appeal, the defendant argues that the police obtained his statements to his girlfriend through an exploitation of the initial coercion and that the taped statements were “fruit of the poisonous tree.” In Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), the Supreme Court explained the application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine:
We need not hold that all evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is ‘whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’
(Citations omitted).
As Wong Sun makes clear, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” analysis in this case does not turn on whether the defendant would have requested to speak to his girlfriend in the absence of the coercive interview with the detective. Instead, the question is whether the statements were obtained through an exploitation of the primary illegality. We hold that they were not.
The statements the defendant made to his girlfriend were made at his insistence. He asked that she be brought to see him, and he voluntarily spoke to her. These were not coerced by any interrogation. Thus,' the statements the defendant made to his girlfriend were sufficiently attenuated from the initial illegality and accordingly we reject the defendant’s “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument.
The defendant also argues on appeal that the police deliberately induced in him a reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation with the girlfriend, relying on State v. Calhoun, 479 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Because this particular argument was not made at trial, we find that this issue is not properly preserved for appellate review.
Affirmed.
GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., ' concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lundberg v. State, 127 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…count and a consecutive term of fifteen years in prison for the second. He appealed, arguing trial court erred in the denial of his motion to suppress statements he made to his girlfriend in a police interview room. We affirmed in Lundberg v. State, 918 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), rev. denied, 932 So. 2d 193 (Fla.2006). Although the trial court had suppressed statements defendant had made to the police because of coercion, we rejected his argument that the statements to his girlfriend were obtained throug…
-
State v. M.R., 100 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…e was sufficient attenuation between the two statements to dissipate the taint of the initial illegal custodial interrogation. For these arguments the State relies principally on Mesa v. State, 673 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) and Lundberg v. State, 918 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). These cases are distinguishable. In Mesa, the defendant had given a formal confession to police after invoking his right to counsel. The State conceded the police violated Mesa’s Miranda rights by continuing to question him in…
-
Hansis Antonio Collado v. State, 208 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…s and ammunition seized from his residence. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the trial court that suppression of the voluntary post-Miranda statement was not mandated as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See Lundberg v. State, 918 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (finding that although suppression of Lundberg’s statements made during his interrogation by the police were properly suppressed due to coercion by the police, his subsequent statements made to his girlfriend, which were sur…
Authorities Cited
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- State v. Calhoun, 479 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)