failure to advise suspect that she was not required to accompany police officers, and had every right to refuse “decisive on the side of the conclusion that compliance with police authority ... is not voluntary”
How later courts described this case
- failure to advise suspect that she was not required to accompany police officers, and had every right to refuse “decisive on the side of the conclusion that compliance with police authority ... is not voluntary”
- "The officers phrased their wish for the appellant to come with them in terms of what they `wanted' her to do. In our judgment, this term, while perhaps not so coercive as an order or demand, is much closer to that end of the continuum than a clearly non-mandatory `request' or invitation."
- confession product of illegal arrest when juvenile taken to station and not told free to leave
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JORGENSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As is his custom, Chief Judge Schwartz has authored a comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion. However, my reading of the record leads me to conclude that the trial court was correct in denying B.S.’s motion to suppress her confession. Unlike the majority, I do not find the officers’ testimony “highly ambiguous” as to whether they informed B.S. that she was not required to accompany them.
B.S. was a 17-year-old high school senior when these events transpired and was sufficiently mature to care for her younger brother and hold a job. Her testimony shows her to be an intelligent, articulate young woman. Although her testimony contradicted that of the officers, clearly the trial court believed the officers. “Credibility determinations made by a trial court will not be disturbed on appeal.” Alzate v. State, 466 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
I would affirm.