TERRY D. CLARK, 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.
This case addresses whether a probation supervisor must provide Miranda warnings before questioning a probationer about a violation. The court held that such warnings are not required because probation supervisors are not law enforcement officers and their role is to aid rehabilitation, not gather evidence.
No, an admission of a probation violation is not inadmissible solely because the probation supervisor failed to provide Miranda-type warnings. Probation supervisors are not law enforcement officers and their role is distinct from that of police.
“the entire probation process is a privilege and those to whom the arms of mercy have been extended should indeed conduct themselves accordingly.”
Establishes the nature of probation as a privilege.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTerry D. Clark was on probation and was questioned by his probation supervisor about an alleged violation of his probation terms. Clark admitted to th…
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 Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
Failure of a probation supervisor to give a Miranda-type warning to Clark prior to his admission of a violation of the terms of probation is argued on this appeal as rendering such an admission inadmissible at a revocation proceeding. We disagree. As Chief Judge Allen said in McNeely v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 520, “the entire probation process is a privilege and those to whom the arms of mercy have been extended should indeed conduct themselves accordingly.”
Clark was lawfully convicted of a crime and was granted probation. The probation supervisor is obligated “to keep informed concerning the conduct, habits, associates, employment, recreations, and whereabouts” of Clark “by visits, requiring reports and in other ways” and “to use all practicable and proper methods to aid and encourage persons on probation, and to bring about improvement in their conduct and condition.” Florida Statutes § 948.02(1) (1967), F.S.A. He is not a policeman. It seems to us that he can be of most usefulness in the rehabilitation of those who have erred if he is not compelled to act like a policeman instead of a sympathetic supervisor. It is the task of others to gather admissible evidence of the commission of the later offense. We find nothing wrong in his asking Clark about an alleged violation of probation, and having been informed of it he is under a duty to advise the court, which he did. The trial court thereafter scrupulously followed Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967), and Clark was represented by counsel at the revocation hearing.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ennis Nettles v. State, 248 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…on to a probation supervisor might be introduced in, a proceeding for revocation of probation [*261] without proof of compliance with Miranda I agree that it can be, for reasons explained in my opinion for this court in Clark v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 766, decided less than a month before the New York Court of Appeals decided the case of Ronald W. My brother Liles concurred in that opinion. But whether that same admission can be admitted at the defendant’s trial for the subsequent offense — the ques…
-
Lockwood v. State, 239 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…d the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See McNeely v. State, 186 So. 2d 520 (Fla.App.1966), and Clark v. State, 222 So. 2d 766 (Fla.App.1969). JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…
-
Jones v. State, 321 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…failure of a probation officer to give a Miranda warning to a probationer prior to his admission of a violation of the terms of his probation does not render the admission inadmissible at the revocation proceeding. Clark v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1969, 222 So. 2d 766. See United States v. Johnson, 5th Cir. 1971, 455 F. 2d 932; People v. W., 1968, 31 A.D.2d 163, 295 N.Y.S.2d 767; State v. Jackson, 1972, 16 Ariz.App. 476, 494 P. 2d 376; but cf. Heath v. State, Fla.App. 4th, 1975, 310 So. 2d 38. Affirmed. McNULTY…
Authorities Cited
- Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1967)
- McNEELY v. State, 186 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)