5D01-1247 State v. Ernst

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2002 » 5D01-1247 State v. Ernst

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D01-1247

Case Date: 02/04/2002

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2002

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D01-1247 MYRON ERNST, Appellee. / Opinion filed February 8, 2002 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Shawn L. Briese, Judge. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David H. Foxman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Daytona Beach, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PETERSON, J. The State appeals the trial court's suppression of statements made by Myron Ernst during an interview by two New Smyrna Beach police officers at the Osceola County jail. The officers were investigating a theft that occurred in New Smyrna Beach. The victim's identification documents were found in a stolen vehicle being driven by Ernst when he was stopped by Osceola County Sheriff's deputies. After entering the interview room at the jail, the officers informed Ernst that they were investigating a burglary in New Smyrna Beach. They began by obtaining basic information

such as name and date of birth and then asked if Ernst had ever been to New Smyrna Beach. When the response was "no," the officers informed Ernst that they had a photograph of him taken in New Smyrna Beach. The photograph had been taken at a New Smyrna Beach convenience store with a security camera that depicted Ernst and another person. Ernst insisted that he had never been there and the officers replied that it would then be impossible for them to have such a photograph. The interview terminated when Ernst said that "maybe he should talk to an attorney." As the officers were about to leave, Ernst asked about the picture. They asked if he was sure that he wanted to talk to them without an attorney present. He responded affirmatively, his Miranda1 rights were read to him and he signed a waiver of rights. Ernst then saw the picture and the interview continued. He was later arrested for the New Smyrna Beach theft and moved to suppress the statements made during the interview. At the suppression hearing, the court found that the officers had used an improper "stratagem"2 and had engaged in gamesmanship in their approach to interviewing Ernst. The court concluded that the officers had not used an honest and straightforward approach to determine if Ernst would talk to them, and suppressed the statements made during the interview.

1

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

The term "stratagem" may not have been the precise term to describe the method used by the two officers. Our research indicates the term is used in cases dealing with police tactics in circumvention of a defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel, such as Brown v. State, 725 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1998). In those cases, the term describes efforts of police to use a secret agent to illicit incriminating statements while the defendant is incarcerated. 2

2

A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumptively correct, and the evidence and reasonable inferences must be interpreted in a manner most favorable to an affirmance. See McMaster v. State, 780 So. 2d 1026, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Notwithstanding, the trial court's legal conclusions are reviewed under a de novo standard. See id. The trial court primarily relied upon Almeida v. State, 737 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1999), cert denied, 528 U.S. 1182 (2000), in which the court held that if "at any point during custodial interrogation, a suspect asks a clear question concerning his or her rights, the officer must stop the interview and make a good-faith effort to give a simple and straightforward answer." Id. at 525. The Almeida opinion also mentioned gamesmanship, which the trial court here found important: "Article I, section 9, Florida Constitution, requires that whenever a suspect's rights are clearly raised in the interrogation room

Download 5D01-1247 State v. Ernst.pdf