THIRD DCA ROUNDUP-BONUS SUPREME COURT CASE EDITION.

Because after all, this is a legal blog and not a nutrition blog. You wanted a legal discussion? You got it.

Just Do the right thing Reemberto.....

In McDonald v. State, the defendant was convicted and sentenced as a GORT (trivia Q- which classic SCFI movie from the 50's has a robot named Gort? Bonus Q- what are the words in that movie that must be told to Gort to save the earth? Hint. Ask Klatu. )

He filed a rule 3.850 challenging his eligibility as a GORT offender and the state confessed error. The case was remanded and the defendant was sentenced without the GORT sanctions. Fast forward to his release and he is told he must register as a repeat offender which he clearly was not. He filed a motion before Judge Diaz and inexplicably, it was denied. Not any more.

There were six criminal opinions released on July 14. Five of them are one line affirmed opinions with a cite. McDonald was the only written opinion of substance. Must be a lot of Judges on summer sabbatical on the campus of FIU.

BONUS FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DECISION:

QUERY: Does the reading of Miranda warnings by a police officer during an otherwise consensual encounter turn that encounter into a seizure under the 4th Amendment?

The 2nd DCA said "yes", the 4th DCA said "no" , (the 3rd DCA questioned the viability of the 4th amendment anymore and chastised the officer for reading Miranda rights when a confession is clearly covered these days under the "inevitable discovery once they beat him long enough" rule.) and the Florida Supreme Court said........

In Caldwell v. State, that reading Miranda warnings does NOT turn a friendly chat with Officer Fluffy into a seizure under the 4th Amendment.

We note from the outset the divergent positions taken by the two opinions certified to be in conflict. For its part, the Fourth District seems to have concluded that as a per se matter, an officer‟s reading of Miranda warnings during an otherwise consensual encounter will always result in a Fourth Amendment seizure. See Raysor, 795 So. 2d at 1072. By contrast, the Second District has reasoned that because the warnings are intended to be a protective measure, Miranda warnings given during a consensual encounter may contribute to a seizure finding within the totality-of-the-circumstances framework. See Caldwell, 985 So. 2d at 605. Thus, we are presented with two questions of law. First, does the reading of Miranda warnings result in a per se seizure under the Fourth Amendment? Second, if the first question is answered in the negative, what impact do the warnings have within the totality-of-the- circumstances/reasonable person analysis set out in Mendenhall?...

In Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993), this Court identified three levels of police-citizen encounters. The first level, a “consensual encounter,” involves minimal police contact and does not invoke constitutional safeguards. During a consensual encounter, an individual is free to leave at any time and may choose to ignore the officer‟s requests and go about his business. Popple, 626 So. 2d at 186. The second level is an “investigatory stop,” during which an officer “may reasonably detain a citizen temporarily if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” ...

The issue we must resolve in this case is whether Officer Crisco‟s actions transformed what began as a first-level consensual encounter into a second-level investigatory stop. See Popple, 626 So. 2d at 186....

We emphasize that Miranda warnings are not required in any police encounter in which the suspect is not placed under arrest or otherwise in custody under Ramirez. See McCarty, 468 U.S. at 440 (noting “the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops are subject to the dictates of Miranda”)...

We first address whether Miranda warnings, as a per se matter, will always

transform a consensual encounter into a seizure under the Fourth Amendment...

As we noted in G.M., “[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a „seizure‟ has occurred.” 19 So. 3d at 978...

In accordance with the cases discussed above, we hold that to the extent the Fourth District determined that the mistaken administration of Miranda warnings results in a seizure as a matter of law, its conclusion was error. The proper test is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would feel

free to end the encounter and depart. While an individual act on the part of an officer may constitute a show of authority that contributes to a seizure finding, we again reject the notion that any single factor, taken alone, will be conclusive in every case in which it appears

Having rejected the Fourth District‟s conclusion that Miranda warnings will always result in a seizure during an on-the-street police encounter, we must determine to what extent, if any, Miranda warnings increase the coercive nature of such an encounter...

Miranda warnings are a formality of arrest and are required only at the time of an arrest or prior to custodial interrogation. Further, the warnings are associated in the public mind with the spectacle of an individual being placed under arrest. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that an individual who is given Miranda warnings during what begins as a consensual encounter may interpret those warnings as a restraint on his or her freedom....

Based on our above discussion, we believe that the reading of Miranda warnings during a consensual police encounter might add to the coercive nature of that encounter under at least some circumstances. ...

Further, we hold that Miranda warnings do not result in a seizure as a matter of law. While we do not discount that possibility that Miranda warnings may increase the coercive atmosphere of a

police-citizen encounter outside the context of a custodial interrogation, we find that the warnings did not result in a seizure in this case.

Rumpole says: We're going to form the Lawyers for Per Se Rules club. Who's in?