# Opposition Brief — Florida v. Long > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_1566%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1988 - **Citation:** 485 U.S. 1019 ## Text Supreme Court, U.S. FILED APR 20 1988 GRIGINAL Case No. 87-1625 JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR. CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1987 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. ROBERT JOE LONG, Respondent. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT JAMES MARION MCORMAN PUBLIC DEFENDER TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WILLIAM C. McCLAIN Assistant Public Defender Barnett Bank Building Post Office Box 671 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (904) 488-2458 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CITATIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE APPENDIX PAGE(S) i ii TABLE OF CITATIONS CASE PAGE(S) Cannady v. State, 427 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1983) 5 Donovan v. State, 400 So.2d 1306 (Fla. 1981) 4 Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) 5,6 Norris v. State, 429 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1983) 4 Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, (1984) 4 Valle v. State, 474 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1985) 5 Waterhouse v. State, 429 So.2d 301 (Fla. 1983) 5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Respondent accepts the Petitioner's Statement of the Case with some additions. A copy of the transcript of the complete suppression hearing is attached as an appendix and page references are made to it as well as to the record on appeal in the lower court. On November 16, 1984, Respondent Long was arrested for the sexual battery and kidnapping of Lisa McVey. (R 816) (A 2) Although Long was the primary suspect in the series of murders which had occurred in the Tampa area, the detectives were careful not to suggest this fact to him. (R 830)(A 16) Detective Price testified that the concealment of this fact was to aid in psychologically preparing Long for the interrogation about the murders. (R 830)(A 16) The Hillsborough County Sheriff had personally selected Price to interview Long because of his skills as an interrogator.(R 831)(A 17) Price transported Long to the sheriff's department where ne and Detective Latimer conducted an extensive interrogation about the McVey case and the series of murders. Long signed a form waiving his Miranda rights and consenting to be inter- viewed on the Lisa McVey case. (R 821-822)(A 7-8) The form designated only the charges of sexual battery and the abduction of McVey. (R 836-837, 869-870, 2890)(A 22-23, 54-56) Long was not advised that he was a suspect in the murders. (R 836-837)(A 22-23) Price and Latimer questioned Long for over one and one-half hours, and Long confessed to the abduction and sexual battery. (R 836-870)(A 22-56) After obtaining the McVey case confession, the detectives changed the subject to the murders and the interrogation continued, lasting over five hours. (R 837, 871)(A 23, 57) They did not inform Long of the change in subject. Instead, they used a series of psychological techniques to prepare Long emotionally to talk. Price left the room to secure photographs of five of the homicide victims who were prostitutes. (R 837-839)(A 23-25) Latimer discussed the various types of physical evidence which can be left at a scene. (R 837-838, 875-876)(A 23-24, 61-62) ‘his was done to suggest to Long that he may have left such evidence in the murder cases. (R 843, 876)(f 29, 62) Latimer also moved very close to Long which would have a subtly coercive effect. (R 839)(A 25) Price returned with photographs, and Long's mood seemed to change. (R 840)(A 26) Latimer asked Long if he ever picked up prostitutes. (R 840, 872)(A 26, 58) Long said he did when he lived in Miami. (R 840, 872)(A 26, 58) Latimer then asked about the Tampa area. (R 841-842, 872)(A 27-28, 58) Long said, “I'd rather not answer that." (R 841-842, 872)(A 27-28, 58) In response, Latimer confronted Long about the murders. (R 842-844, 872-873)(A 28-30, 58-59) There was no break in the interrogation. (R 879)(A 65) Latimer handed Long photographs of the victims and asked if he hau seen any of them. (R 875)(A 61) Long said he had not seen any of the first four. However, he lingered on the fifth and said he may have seen her somewhere. (R 845, 875)(A 31, 61) After seeing the photographs, Long said, The complexion of things sure have changed Since you came back into the room I think I might need an attorney (R 846, 877)(A 32, 63) Before Latimer could respond (R 848)(A 34), «rice interjected and said, “Nothing has changed. I am still being honest with you.” (R 846)(A 32) He also asked Long, “Why would you need an attorney?” (R 856-857)(A 42-43) Price admitted that he lied to Long and responded quickly to prevent Long from having adequate time to think about a lawyer. (R 847-850)(A 33-36) At the suppression hearing, Price testified, “Nothing had changed for me. I was pursuing the interrogation.” (R 847)(A 33) Detective Price was proud of his skills as an interroga- tor. He admitted that he and Latimer used ten different techniques to persuade Long to continue talking. First, after Long was arrested, he was placed in the patrol car. Price told him, “I want to thank you for not hurting that little girl.” (R 830-831)(A 16-17) He then left Long alone to think about the statement. (R 831)(A 17) Second, Price carefully did not let Long know he was the suspect for the murders. (R 830, 847-848)(A 16, 33-34) Third, Price let Long know that he knew something about his background by mentioning that he knew Long was from West Virginia. (R 833-834)(A 19-20) Price said this was done to start the psychological preparation of Long for the interrogation about the murders. (R 834)(A 20) Fourth, when the interrogation about the murders started, Price used the photographs of the victims for psychological impact. (R 837)(A 23) Fifth, Latimer talked about physical evidence to imply that Long had left such evidence. (R 838)(A 24) Sixth, the detectives told Long the investigation was complete when in fact they did not have a case on him for the murders at that time. (R 854)(A 40) Seventh, during the interrogation, Detective Latimer moved close to Long for a psychologically coercive effect. (R 839-840)(A 25-26) Eighth, when Long said he did not want to talk because the subject of the interview changed, Price lied to him and said nothing had changed when in fact the interrogation had shifted to the murders. (R 846-847)(A 32-33) Ninth, when Long asked for a lawyer, Price interrupted with the statement that the investigation nad not changed and questioned why Long thought he would need a lawyer. (R 856)(A 42) Price admitted that his purpose was to prevent Long from thinking about a lawyer and to encourage him to continue talking. (R 849-850)(A 35-36) Tenth, Price said he used a lot of flattery on Long, too, in hopes that it would make him prone to talk about the crimes. (R 850)(A 36) REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT The petition for writ of certiorari should be denied for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court of Florida's decision is not a suitable vehicle ior this Court to resolve the conflict among the jurisdictions left undecided in Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 96 (1984), on the effect of an ambiguous reference to counsel during custodial interrogation. Second, Petitioner is merely seeking another forum to relitigate the factual issue resolved in Respondent's favor that he did request counsel. In Smith, this Court identified three approaches various jurisdictions had fashioned to deal with an ambiguous reference to counsel during custodial interrogation. One requires the interrogating officer to treat any reference to counsel as a request for counsel and to immediately terminate all question- ing. A second mandates that the reference to counsel must first meet a threshold of clarity before it is treated as a request for a lawyer. The third requires the officer to stop questioning about the offense and to limit his inquiry to Clarifying the ambiguous reference to counsel. 3169 U.S. at 96, n. 9. After noting these tnree approaches, Petitioner suggests that the Florida court has aligned itself with the one which limits inquiry to clarifying the comment any time an equivocal reference to counsel is made. (Petition for Writ of Certiorari at page 16-17) This suggestion is incorrect, and this case does not clearly present the conflict issue. The Supreme Court of Florida uses a combination of the threshold of clarity and limited inquiry approaches. Initial- ly, the court uses the threshold of clarity approach to deter- mine if the reference can be construed as a request for coun- sel. E.g., Norris v. State, 429 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1983) (defendant's asking officer if he thought he needed a lawyer not deemed a request for counsel); Donovan v. State, 400 So.2d 1306 (Fla. 1981)(defendant's asking if he could obtain a lawyer without cost not a request for counsel). Next, if the ambiguous reference is deemed to be a request for counsel, as well as 4 desire to continue without counsel, the court permits @ police officer to make inguiry to clarify without being guilty of init.ating further interrogation in violation of the teachings of Edwards v. Arizona 451 U.S. 477 (1961). See, ©:9-- Valle v. State, 474 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1985); Waterhouse ¥. State, 429 So.26 301 (Fla. 1963); Cannady v. State, 427 So.2¢ 723 (Fla. 1983). Were, the Florida court first evaluated the factual issue of whether Long's statement was 2 request for counsel and concluded that it met the threshold. Saving Getermined that a request for counsel was involved, the court found # violation of Miranda and Edwards. The court noted that the detectives would not have been faulted had their inguiry been limited to clarifying the request because it was equivocal. However, the point of decision was the resolution of the factual issue of whether Long's comment constituted « request for counsel. The court has sot clearly aligned itself with the position that any ambiguous reference to counsel restricts the officer to questions aimed at clarification of the comment. As stated in the opinion. the restriction of questioning to clarification is pertinent wnen the ambiguous - comment can be interpreted as both a request for counsel and a Gesire to continue the interview without counsel. Throughost the petition for writ of certiorari, the Petitioner talks of Long's “reference to counsel.“ This Gemonstrates the Petitioner's real desire here is to relitigate the factual issue of whether Long's statement was « mere reference to counsel or a request for counsel. The Supreme Court of Florida decided that question in Long's favor. More than ample evidence supports that decision. and this Court should not exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to again decide facts. Long tried to stop the questions about the homicides before he asked for a lawyer. When the subject of prostitutes arose, be said he did not want to talk about it. When the Getectives continued to press the matter by showing Long photographs. Long then made his request for counsel. ther [e ‘ " ta y © » €-e ’ afte rere . a . er a . 4 4 . ne Pr ra 3 5 .évye ? £ reques va +a werc * «ee: WILLIAM ©. ACLATN ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER Member of the Supreme Bar and Counsel of Record iCrar CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, WILLIAM C. MCLAIN, a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and counsel of record for ROBERT JOE LONG, the Respondent, hereby certify that on Ap.il 9°, 1988, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 28, I served a single copy of the foregoing Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court on each of the parties as follows: On the State of Florida, the Petitioner, by depositing said copy in the United States Post Office, Tallahassee, Florida, with first class postage prepaid, properly addressed to PEGGY A. QUINCE, Assistant Attorney General, 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 804, Park Trammell Building, Tampa, Florida, 33602. / APPENDIX ITEM PAGE Transcript of Motion to Suppress A-1 1 . ' IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY 2 3 |Ppoeececoeoueeeecseecesssanoeeeoes STATE OF FLORIDA, 3 F 4 : Plaintiff, ; q BF «| 5 $ i -vVs- g CASE NO. 84-1725CFPAES 6 : ROBERT JOE LONG, : 7 . Defendant. : nm 8 | \en ann ~~~ - -- - ~~ - +--+ e.. = : e 48 10 PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO SUPPRESS ee ~s E a " DATE: 17 April 1985 pri * Commencing at 2:55 p.m. = || didn’t want to talk to you? e ia No, sir. ? Q Following your obtaining this signed Consent to * | Interview, you did talk to Mr. Long for some period of |) time. 0 A Yes, sir. he Q During those conversations with Mr. Long, did -- '? || Gig he ever tell you that he didn't want to talk to you ‘3 |) any more? t4 A No, sir. 's Q Did he ever unequivocably say, “I will not telk ‘@ || to you or deal with you without a lawyer*? ” B No, sir. id Q Did Mr. Long ever indicate to you that he wanted "9 to stop talking at any point? 20 B No, sir. 2 Q During the period of time that you were with mr. 22 || Long that evening and into the morning, where was Mr. 23 || Long? In the interview roon? 24 n Yes, sir. 2s Q What size room are we talking about? A ye . if. ‘ ‘ 7 ar ’ ‘i. n © ne A ne : : > +s he » Lor -— wa u Lor ¥ aske if he wa " : De innir > ‘ inte > wer ’ - +h os +> e 9 . nerat > ‘ € ste : - wes J had no conversatior f e a reward, ffter hin sx ft you? Z enec in ar way ¢ y © that ceunté , " - al * the leat ; . — hae o Mr he there anyone present was interviewed, being 7) © - a . 1° his own hand? A No, sir. MR. GRANTHAM: Yes, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRANTHAM: Mr. Long? A Yes. rights? A No, sir. A Pardon me? at that time? . A At the time of the search warrant? Yes, sir. I have no idea. Or the arrest warrant. > Oo F OD I have no idea. represent your department. MR. VAN ALLEN: That's all I have, Judge. THE COURT: Cross-examination, Mr. Grantham? Q Did you hear Detective Cribb read the warrant to Q Did you hear him read Mr. Long his Miranda Q Is it your position they weren't read at that Q Is it your position that he was not read Miranda Q You say Lt. Terry had appointed you as the one to - Wat 121 24 25 122 A Yes, sir. Q You weren't hand-picked by Sheriff Heinrich? | A Sir, we're talking about two different Situations. You're referring to -- Q I'm referring to your duties as to the interrogation. A That was by Sheriff Heinrich. Q Excuse me, sir. That was by Sheriff Heinrich. Excuse me, sir. You had interviewed Lisa McVey. A Yes, sir, I was involved in an interview conducted -- | Q You were present in the interview? A Yes, sir. Q Was Sgt. Latimer? A Sir, I believe so but I'm not positive at this moment. I'm really not. I believe he was. Q Miss McVey's description and stutf she told you was pretty general. A Yes, sir. Q In fact, you didn't -- you thought it sounded like a fairy tale when Miss McVey started telling you that. A Not when she told me about it; when I heard about it. The initial offense when it was brought to my ARTY w attention seemed somewhat like a, fairy tale, yes, sir. Q A Okay. Detective Wolfe Detective Wolfe and Helms at that time were assigne as I said earlier, presently works for me. a Detective Helms and Wolfe work with you? the task force, but they worked for Sgt. Pennington in sexual assault squad. Q At that time were they assigned to the task force? A At the same time everyone else was, 14th of November. Q You became aware that they had occasion to sto Mr. Long -- A Yes, sir. Q -- the 15th. In fact, they called you by phone or radio. A By radio. Q Did you tell them to stall as long as possible? A Until I could find out what the situation was. When they contacted me, description of the vehic they felt very good about the le and Mr. Long. Q You told them to stall there as long as A What I told them initially was there was not lot we could do about it, to let Mr. Long go. Q Okay. When you -- you rode in the same car A-\s a as possible? ~) °o N Mr. Long from the theater to Mr. Long's house. A Yes, sir. Q Did you tell Mr. Long that you were in charge of that investigation? A Yes, sir. Q That wasn't true; was it? A No, Sir. Q You told Mr. Long that you were not going to talk about the case until you got downtown; correct? A Yes. Q Okay. What case was that? A That was the abduction/kidnapping/involuntary sexual battery of Lisa McVey or Rhodes. Q There was no mention at this time of murder cases. A No, sir. Q In fact, that was purposeful, you did not want to mention that. A No, sir. Yes, sir, it was purposeful. Q Now, after telling Mr. Long that you weren't going to talk about this until you got downtown, -- A Yes, sir. Q -- you had Mr. Long sitting in the back seat of the police car. As you got out leaving Mr. Long in there by himself, you said something to the effect of, “I want Ab to thank you for not hurting that little girl. A That's exactly what I said. Q And you left him in there to think about ts correct? x Yes Q That was for the psychological affect you w hoping it would have on hin. A Yes, Sir. Q That's also why you left him alone in the c for the psychological affect A Yes, Sir. Q You've had extensive training and on-the-jo experience in interrogating people. A Yes, sir, I would assume. Q Seminars - classes =- training. A Yes, sir. Q Approximately how many people have you interrogated in your 15 years with Tampa Police Department? Over a thousand? A Sir, it would be very difficult to say, but very large number, yes, sir. Q Pretty good at it? Mh That would be a matter of opinion. Q Okay. Sheriff Heinrich hand-picked you to represent the whole Tampa Police Department. fu % A Yes. Q And he hand-picked Sgt. Latimer to represent the whole Sheriff's Office; didn't he? A Yes, sir. Q Did you hear the search warrant being read to Mr. Long? x Not word for word, sir. I would have to say I ' ; heard the search warrant being read, but not from the first line to the last line, no, Sir. Q Are you familiar with the search warrant? A Not very. MR. VAN ALLEN: Objection until we find out which one. There were 59 search warrants in this case. MR. GRANTHAM: The one that was read to him at that time. I believe there was only one, BY MR. GRANTHAM: Q The search warrant that you were discussing earlier that you had heard, MR. VAN ALLEN: Talking about the one of the car or the one of the house? MR. GRANTHAM: The car. MR.VAN ALLEN: You can talk about the one on the car. MR. GRANTHAM: Thank you. BY MR. GRANTHAM: FA? 126 Q apartment, A Q Virginia” A Q Yes, Sir. When you were I asked him. Didn't you say ? Yes. Basically you of his background. A Virginia. Q "Where ar I asked him if e you from?” you told hin in the car with M that he was fron » "I understand you were telling him y he'd ever be asking you is: ° Wes tb o ~“ 24 25 in | interrogated, feeling him out, see if he was going to talk 128 West Virginia," or something along that line. A IT told him -- I asked him, "zr understand you're from West Virginia." Q Right. A Okay. Q Okay. Is it true by telling a suspect that you're interrogating a little bit about. their background, it builds your status in their eyes, maikes them think you're more of an authority figure, more all knowing? A Not under those circumstances iI wouldn't say.- I was not interrogating Mr. Long when I made that statement. Q Weren't you shall we say preparcing him to be to -- seeing if he was going to talk, beest way to talk to Mr. Long? A I would agree with that. Q You're saying the fact -- are you saying the fact that you -- you said, "1 understand you'ire from West Virginia,” as opposed to saying, "Where are you from?" that had no tactical or strategic signifiicance? a Not to me at the time, no, sir. Q But you do agree it's an interrogation technique that you should appear to know a lot about your subject and let him know you know it. A Yes, sir. A+20 1] Q You told Mr. Long that you had gone to a lot of 2 || trouble to avoid having the press there; was that true? 3 | A To a degree. Not as much as I had expressed it. 4 Q You told Mr. Long you thought the press were . 5 snakes; didn't you? 6 Bq Yes, Sir. ? Q Was that true? é A No, Sir. 9 Q When you got into the interview room, you Say you ° had Mr. Long sign this Consent to Interview. A Yes, sir. 2 Q Okay [here are a couple blanks up on top Who filled in those blanks, sir? A Q 15 B, I did, sir. Q ° On the first blank you've written in Mr. Long's name, Bobby Joe Long. 0 18 A Yes, sir. Q On the second blank you've written in your name Oj} and Sgt. Latimer's name; correct? A Yes, sir. 2 Q And then it says, "Concerning the offense of - « -” Blank, and there is what he had consented to be 24 interviewed on. \ 130 Q What's it say? A Involuntary sexual battery or the abbreviation -- or the abbreviation for involuntary sexual battery and abduction. Q Doesn't say anything about any murders there; does it? A No, sir, it does not. Q Again, that was done purposely, omitting any reference to the murders: at that time. A Yes, sir. Q You did all or the vast majority of the questioning on the McVey case; didn't you? A Yes, sir. Q Okay. That went on for an hour - hour and a half. A Approximately. Q Basically during that time, there was really nothing but the McVey case discussed. A Yes, sir. Q He was cooperative with you at that time. A Very much so. Q He never mentioned anything about an attorney. A No, sir. . Q Never mentioned anything about not wanting to talk about any specific area except for I think the sex f-22 act; is that correct? A With Lisa McVey. Q Yes, sir. A Yes, sir. Correct. Q At that point after you had gotten pretty much } all you could or all you needed or all you wanted about the McVey case, you felt it was time to start talking to him about the murder cases. A Yes, sir. Q You went out of the room to get a prop. A Yes, sir. Q And what was the purpose of the prop? A Just an -- it's a method or technique utilizes always, if at all possible, if you can have some type of article that the subject is familiar with, and you walk in the room, it definitely has a psychological affect. Q Since you really have no feelings about the press one way or the other, the fact that you told him you thought they were snakes, was that also designed for the psychological affect on Mr. Long? A Yes, sir. Q Now, I believe you left the room to go get the prop or look for a prop of some sort. 2 Yes, sir. Q Did Sgt. Latimer start talking to Mr. Long when A-23 you got up to leave? A He was talking to him when I left. Q Okay. What was he talking about, sir? A They were discussing physical evidence. Q Such as blood, fiber, semen, hair, fingerprints, things like that? a Yes. | Q Was he saying anything specific about them or | just saying you know what fingerprints are, you know what | tire prints are? A Yes, sir, that type of thing. Q He was still talking about that when you got back in there? A Yes, sir. Q At this point, still no mention of murders; correct? A No, sir. Q What prop did you find? B I was provided five Polaroid photographs of five victims. Q These were press release photos? AK Yes, sir. Q Photos that had very likely been printed in the newspaper along with the story about these incidents. A I couldn't say one way or the other whether any Az24 132 A . Yes, sir. 1 134 Okay. Now, when you handed them to Sgt. Latimer, did Mr. Long get a chance to see them or at least the top one when you were handing them to Sgt. Latimer? Didn't A I would assume, yes. Q You noticed visible consternation on Long's face at the point you handed the photographs to Mr. -- Sgt. Latimer. A Yes, sir. Q It was a start? A Nothing radical, but there was a change in mood. Q At that point, Sgt. Latimer has the photographs; correct? A Yes, sir. Q He's sitting a foot to a foot and a half from Bobby Joe Long. A Yes, sir. Q He asked Mr. Long if he'd ever picked up any prostitutes. A Yes, sir, he did. Q Mr. Long's response was Miami. A "In the Miami area," I believe he said. Q Sgt. Latimer said, “How about in Tampa?" he? A Yes, sir. that.* BY No, sir Q "= t want AnSwe that* A “3 prete not t anéwer that,”* tr xk he nid 0 "Tl we , ete not ¢t answe that.” I that ¢t the best of your rec ect what he said A Yes, sir Q Now, most of these -- this series of homicide: you were investigating known as the prostitutes murders or erseuU’ i Q Several of the girls had prostitution backgrounds. he Sir, the nine homicides that were committed, one body was left in the City of Tampa. Sgt. Latimer can answer much better in regards to the personal background on the individual girls. Q You're saying you don't have any personal knowledge? A Yes, sir, I know for a fact that -- say I can go as far to say maybe three, you know, that I was positive of or sure of that had been either loose or background involving prostitution. Q You said you remember hir saying, “I prefer not A-27 to answer that." Is that the same as, "I'd rather not -_ - ~ ™ . i you ] 3 , | : this statement a NO, Sif Did y € - ¢ - f ehe « " ~ “- J _ > . " afte it wa ‘ p. . P € : [ ’ + . e ame . = - . - ; = - 3 7 S > + > > . " . 4 Mignt neec an @ rne Set ¥ e - ‘ anvthir about these rc 5 > . A res, Afte that time € ( _ al ~~ . e' rn € ea +> co Cal a n her Line 7 r Ul ae > nr the you asesé Ss . t he ++ ec ow mn 0 of ro) ea tr ao nem, e > > 7; e Zi? cas the me f anc there was rs n + [S, Nor ®r think y > n =" . aiC, ' > e*'ve \ care pers; a \! 149 immaterial. MR. GRANTHAM: It goes directly to coercion, involuntariness and freedom to exercise rights, what was told to Mr. Long. THE COURT: Anything further? Objection overruled. BY MR. GRANTHAM: Q You agree that -- your evidence that you had, iad we ~ - fibers and tire prints; correct? a copy of the Consent to Interview form. 22 ‘ Yes, sir. 23 Q Do you know who filled in these blanks in the 24 top, sir? y Q "I, Bobby interviewed. . .” by yourself, involunta the murde Q 164 Okay. He filled in the blank where it says that, Joe Long, do hereby consent to be being concerning the ry sexual battery/abduction. . ." Any mention of rs on there? This is on the McVey case? Did you all mention the murders to him at the beginning? A rn * you were h Q majority A Q A No, Sir. Any of the murders? No, sir. Did you avoid any mention of those? Yes, sir. When you read him his rights and he signed that, talking to him only about the McVey case. Yes. Yes, sir. Sgt. Price did all the talking or the vast of the talking during the McVey statement. Yes, sir. Mr. Long was cooperative with you. Almost eager to talk on that subject. He was cooperative. He indicated he wanted to ~Sb 165 talk about it. Q Then after he had pretty much talked out the McVey case, you started talking to him; correct? A Yes, sir. Q First subject you started talking to his about was physical evidence. A Yes. Q Now, as far as these murder cases, €ié you ai: have any eye witnesses? A No, sir. Q Okay. About all you had on those cases were physical evidence. B Yes, sir. Q Fair to say when you started talking about physical evidence with Mr. Long, that was leading into the murder cases? A Yes, sir. Q Sir, there was some photographs that were showed to Mr. Long right about this time. Where did those photos come from? Did you have them or did Sgt. Price go out and get them? A I think I had them with me. I'm not real sure where they came from. Q Do you recall before you showed them to Mr. Longs Mr. Long seeing them or seeing the top picture while they A-s1 i | ! 166 | were in your hands or in Sgt. Price's hands? A No, sir, I don't. Q You don’t recall that? b No, sir. Q Now, during the McVey questioning Sgt. Price asked him, “Did you commit any other crimes?" and he denied that; correct? ——$-— A Yes, sir. Q Several of the girls that were found, their bodies, were they involved in prostitution? A Yes, sir. 7 Q After talking to him about physical evidence, you talked to him about prostitutes. A Yes, sir. Q You asked him if he ever picked up any prostitutes. e Yes, sir. Q He said, “In Miami.* A Um-ham. Q You said, “How about in Tampa?" And he said, "I'd rather not talk about that.* Yes, sir. Then you showed him pictures of these girls. Yes, sir. o > 3D > Some of whom were prostitutes in Tampa. A-52 o o Ww Land A Q ves, sir. Asked him on each he know this one. A Q Yes, sir. Those were the press releases. A Q A Q A had made Yes, sir. He said he didn't Correct. Did Sgt. Price of this five o Just a portion of the handw - later earn as or 4 ey give y 2 hour in nour 1 me to call in to word processing to Q ua one did he know = mo th oO mo rh A portion of the handwritten supplement, referring to the seven page supplement? A Q Yes, Sir. Did -- he made some i notes fr recalled and you incorporated those A Q Correct. s Do you recall a depositi Question: ° p> on | \ 168 after the interview? Answer: No. No, sir. Now you're saying he did ‘have some notes that he gave you? A It wasn't notes he gave me; it was a -- we wrote the supplement out ahead of time so I could call it into -- on the telephone to word Processing. It wasn't notes that he gave me that he took. I interpreted that question as notes that he took during the interview. There was no notes that he took during the interview that he turned Over to me. Q Okay. Again, back to that same page, page 20, this is the question immediately before that: Question: In addition, you also used some notes that Price had written down after the interview. Answer: I don't know what Price wrote down after the interview. Same question, Question: Did he turn over any notes to you after the interview? Answer: No. No, sir. A When you asked me those questions, I thought you were talking about notes that he took -- actually took during the interview. He turned over no notes to me that he took during the interview. A-tod w @ w oO ~ fea) wo Immediately after you showed him those | | Q All right, sir. photographs and he denied knowing any of them, he had to go to restroom, A Yes, sir. | Q Do you recall how he let you know "I think I might need to use the restroom"? A He said, "Can I use the restroom." Q And you let him use the restroom at that point. A Yes, sir. Q Are you certain of that, sir? A Certain of what? I let him use the restroozs Q At that point? A Yes, sir. When he asked if he could use the |} restroom, I let him use the restroom. | 1] Q Upon his ioturn from the restroom, you started | talking about physical evidence. A yes, sir. Yes, sir. | | Q Hair, fiber, semen, blood, things along those | lines. A Yes, sir. Q As far as you knew, did you have any semer evidence tying him in? A We had semen evidence. Nothing to tie him in at that time -- at that point. 170 C 1 Q How about blood, did you have any blood evidence 2 || at that time to tie him in? : A No, sir. | 4 Q Fingerprints? | "| A No, sir. | Q At that point, did you have any hair that would 7 || tie him in? 8 || A We had hair samples at some of the crime scenes. | Q At that point the only thing that you really had 10 || was fiber connecting the -- some of the bodies and the | | ’ || McVey case. Had you gotten the F.B.I. report back 12 || analyzing Mr. Long's -- the sample taken from his car? i] | C 13 || A No, sir. | | 14 |} Q So really you had no fiber evidence at that point in time at Mr. Long's interview; did you? A No, sir. Q Only thing was a tire impression and you had information that Mr. Long had a Vogue tire. | | | | information that was a Vogue tire impression and you had | A Yes, sir. 21 || Q That's basically the only physical evidence you 22 | had at that point to connect Mr. Long to any of these | 23 | cases. 24 || A Yes, sir. 25 || Q You then talked to him about how good the F.B.I. ) A-t2 C } is. Talked about the F.B.I. laboratory. 2 A Yes, sir. || Q Yes, sir? a || A Yes, sir. Ww Q At that point, do you recall -- now this is after 6 || the McVey case is all talked out and you've discussed | physical evidence with him, you've asked him about 8 | prostitutes, you've shown him the pictures of some of the 9 || bodies of the women whose bodies you've found and he wants = ct oO et J mo 10 to get up and go out of the room. You took him restroom, brought him back, at that point do you recall things sure has changed. I think I might need an 14 || attorney"? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 | Q Did you get an attorney for him? 17 | A No, sir. 18 | Q Did you tell him, "Do you want an attorney or 20 | A No, Sir. 21 || Q Did you readvise him of his rights? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q Did you have him sign another one of these 4 || Consent to Interview forms with murder on the top of it ~o3 24 25 A No, sir. Q In fact you tried to talk him out of having a attorney. A No, Sir. Q Sgt. Price did. A No, sir. Q Do you recall Sgt. Price almost as soon as Mr. Long said that saying, “Nothing's changed. You knew this was all going to happen. We've been honest with you. Be honest with us"? A Yes, sir. Q That was before you could even respond to Mr. Long, wasn't it, when he said, "I think I might need an attorney"? A He responded before I did, yeah. Q You're saying that neither of you all tried to talk him out of having an attorney. Is it fair to say you didn't encourage it either? I didn't think he requested an attorney. You think he was just making conversation? I felt like he was sitting thinking out loud. That he was thinking about he needed an attorney? He thought he might need one. Did you ask him, "Do you want one or not?" > OF OF CBD PF Ho, sir, I didan't. 172 w 0 Ww 173 1% Q At the time you read him his rights, -- did you read him his rights? A Sgt. Price. Q At the time Sgt. Price read him his rights, the only thing that he had heard mentioned or seen in writing or heard read was the abduction/sexual battery of Lisa McVey; is that true? A Yes, Sir. Q And it was at some point an hour to an hour and a half after that that the prostitute murders started being talked about; correct? A Yes, Gif. Q And there was no break there; was there? There was no -- wasn't "I'm going put you in a cell. We'll come back and talk to you in half an hour." A No, Sir. Q There was no break. When he said, "I don't want to answer that," you immediately started showing him the pictures; correct? A Yes, sir. Q There was no break when he said, "I think I might need an attorney." You or Sgt. Price immediately started talking, "Nothing's changed. Nothing's changed." A Yes, sir. Q Three times you went over physical evidence with hus him, "Do you understand what physical evidence is?" Three separate conversations broken up by other subject matter; is that true? A Yes, sir. Q After the McVey thing when Sgt. Price got up to leave and you started doing the talking, there was kind of a shift in the interview at that point from McVey to the murders. You were talking about physical evidence as a lead in. B Yes, sir. Q Since the interview was shifting to another subject, did you read him his rights at that point? A No, sir. Q Did anybody ever tell Mr. Long that he could tape record that first interview on McVey and what followed? B Ask the question again. I'm sorry. Q Did anybody ever tell Mr. Long he had a choice, he could have this conversation tape recorded or he could write it down or you could write it down? A I didn't tell him that. I didn't hear anybody else tell him that. Q Now, on the McVey case it was pretty much a narrative. Mr. Long didn't need a whole lot of prompting, pretty much a narrative, this, this and this. a Yes, sir. 174 uw) ™ © - ar + 1€ 1€ wit! so e out ng wi didn't nee talked tc talikin had a ¢ + of all of them. Then I di Same as the [al 5 ~ WO ~ n cr vy f his cel ee f ut his d Gu 177 No, sir. You didn't? No, sir. How far were you sitting from him, sir? Maybe five feet - six feet. oreo ? © 2? You weren't sitting three feet from him before Sgt. Price left? A No, sir. Q And you didn't move to within a foot and a half before Sgt. Price came back? A I didn't move during the entire time. Whether 1 was three feet or five feet from him, whatever the distance was, it remained the same. Q As far as the case concerning Virginia Johnson, the body found in Pasco County, were you in the area when that was found? A No, sir. Q Okay. You -- in your mind, that statement, ae think I might need an attorney,” was nothing so you didn't attempt to clarify it; correct? A No, sir. Q You and Sgt. Price bee: working together for a long time, interacting pretty much on a daily basis? A Yes, sir. Q Somebody call you while Detective Wolfe and Helms A-lo9 had Mr. Long on the side of the road on November 15? A I was called after the stop had been made. Q It wasn't while the stop was made? A No, Sir. Q Prior to questioning Mr. Long, were you familiar with the psychological profile that had been prepared by the F.B.I.? A Yes. Q You spoke with F.B.I. Agent Jacobson who prepared it. A Yes, sir. Q Told you certain facets of the makeup of this person that he felt had done these crimes. A Yes, sir. Q Did you use information in that report during your interrogation of Mr. Long? For instance, authority figure, was that in there and did you use that? A Yes, sir. Q How about what to wear, did he say what to wear there? A There was information as to -- as to how you should or shouldn't dress, Q Should dress in browns or tans? A Not a flashy-type dresser. Q And you dressed in accordance with that. the arrest went down. Q And it matched? t=» ) wv A Yes, Sir. I not a flashy dre er. lA ‘ ; ¥ w Y ¥ r Q Told you even when t interview him, the pe that did thi was probably going t ré i¢ > ‘ . Ar . i > . = - r ’ ‘ce ™ ‘ . ~ > * : > ~ + ¢ the > > As whe . . " . . T > ~ equivocal. And Singleton v. State, 344 So.2d 911, the defendant asked maybe I should ask my mother if I need an attorney, and the Court held that was an invocation of her right to an attorney. Bain v. State, defendant "was unsure of himself" is the only indication in the opinion, and again the Court held that there could be no waiver in a situation such as that and any statements had to be suppressed. Your Honor, it's axiom -- citing Buehler v. State, 381 So.2d 746, that the Court must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver. Here Mr. Long, first as to the prostitutes, said "I don't want to talk about it." They started showing him pictures. Case of Tierney v. State, Second D.C.A. out of Pasco County, 404 So.2d 206, held that where a police officer read a co-defendant's interview to the other defendant, that was interrogation. There is no way that showing pictures of murder victims would not be interrogation after he had asserted his right to remain silent on that particular issue. Also, Jones v. State, Second D.C.A., 346 So.2d 639, he began reciting his investigation and he got 192 the defendant to talk, and that also was held to be interrogation. Your Honor, the State -- in Cason v. State, Second D.C.A., 373 So.2d 372, the State has a heavy burden of establishing with unmistakable clarity the admissibility of statements in a criminal case. If there was an equivocal response -- and we submit that there was an unequivocal response -- but if it is equivocal, the only path the police could go in at that point is to clarify, to ask him, "Do you want an attorney? Do you want to remain silent?" Drake v. State, Supreme Court of Florida, 441 So.2d 1079, 1984, states that the only path after a equivocal response is clarification. That was not done here. Your Honor, I anticipate the State will refer to the letter that was admitted over my objections, and it has some statement regarding -- something about the confession. We submit that is not the issue here. The issue is not voluntariness at that point as far as the Fifth Amendment rights go. Miranda says statements can be voluntary, but if the Miranda rights are not scrupulously honored, then the statement is inadmissible. Likewise, the police cannot use attendant 194 C ' circumstances that are calculated to delude the 2 prisoner as to his true position or exhibit improper | 3 or undue influence over him. 4 We submit that is what was present throughout the 5 || contact with the police. He was lied to from his 6 first contact to his last contact with the police. ? Lastly, Your Honor, cite the case of Fiske v. 8 State, Supreme Court, Florida, 366 So.2d 423, which 9 states that any ambiguities, any doubts, in criminal | 10 || proceedings have to be resolved in the defendant's | WW favor, and if there is any question whether it's equivocal or not, it must be held to be unequivocal. 13 In any event, if it is equivocal the only path the C 14 police could take at that point was to clarify. 15 We submit that the statements should be 16 suppressed. 7 THE COURT: Thank you very much, sir. 18 Mr. Van Allen. 19 MR. VAN ALLEN: Judge, the issue appears to be 20 “Clear. I'd like to pick up and cite to the Court 21 || again the case Mr. Grantham cited, Norris versus the 22 State, found at 429 So.2d 688. There are a couple of | 23 things that occurred in this case. The police gave | a4 Mr. Norris the standard Miranda warnings including his 25 right to the appointment of counsel. Norris then C | A-te 24 25 195 asked the detectives interrogating him whether or not he needed an attorney. Detectives responded that they couldn't make that decision for Mr. Norris and if Norris wanted an attorney he would quit talking to him at that time. Norris thereafter said that he would answer questions but only the ones he wanted to answer. The Court found that that was a valid waiver, not an equivocal waiver but a valid waiver of Mr. Norris' constitutional rights under Miranda. And they didn't waste a minute in determining that it was all right for a defendant to pick and choose what questions he wanted to answer, as in the situation with Mr. Long where, when asked about prostitutes, said he didn't want to talk about them. But he -- the Court says, . « « He now contends that the state did not demonstrate a valid waiver because the police never answered his question of whether or not he needed an attorney. And finds . . . that the response given by the detective did not make further conversation with Norris either impermissible or inadmissible. . . The failure to answer Norris' question neither lulled him into 31 24 25 waiving an attorney or prevented his asking for one. - And the Court goes on to say, the Investigating officers must respond affirmatively to a request for an attorney, but they are not required to try to convince a defendant that he needs an attorney. In this situation, the defendant made the statement "I think I need an attorney.” It is not the obligation of either Detective Price or Detective Latimer to sit down and figure out whether or not that means I think I need one or I think I don't need one. It's simply not a request for a lawyer. I point out the case again cited by Mr. Grantham, the case of Cannady versus the State, 412 So.2d. 723, again a Supreme Court of Florida case. In this case, the context in which appellant said he thought he should call his lawyer made it impossible. . .to determine whether or not he was requesting a lawyer. While expressing a desire to speak to an attorney, which presumably indicates a wish not to answer any more questions, appellant was also readily confessing his guilt by 196 = A-3T repeatedly saying he did not mean to kill the man, thereby indicating a desire to continue talking. Again, same situation we have here. The defendant says, well, I think I might need a lawyer, and then he says’ -- he goes on to talk about how he killed these women. In Cannady the factual situation was that, According to McKeithen. . Mr. Cannady started acting nervous so McKeithen asked him outright if he killed Carrier. The defendant, Cannady, started « e e Crying and said, ‘I didn't mean to shoot that man, I didn't mean to kill that man, it wasn't supposed to happen that way.' McKeithen said that appellant kept crying and then said, 'I think I should call my lawyer.' McKeithen said that he then ceased his questioning and placed a telephone in front of appellant. McKeithen testified that appellant continued crying and kept saying, 'l didn't mean to kill the man. It wasn't supposed to happen that way.' McKeithen asserted that three or four minutes later he A-¥9 24 25 198 asked appellant if he wanted to talk and appellant said yes. The cop did absolutely nothing wrong. The man said I need to talk to a lawyer, I didn't mean to kill him, McKeithen waited and later asked do you want to talk about it, he said yes. The Court held that was not a equivocal waiver, it was a valid waiver of his rights under Miranda. There is a case entitled Bryan F. Jennings versus the State of Florida, 413 So.2d 24, in this particular case, Mr. Jennings was being questioned by a man named Hudepohl who was from the homicide squad. He read the dissertation set forth in the footnotes of the case. He read the standard Miranda warnings to the defendant, after each one asking whether or not the defendant understood, he finally said, Are you willing to proceed without an attorney being present to represent you? In other words, do you want to go ahead and talk to us now? Answer: Yeah, but let me wake up a little bit first this is not good when I just woke up. No, I don't think so; I definitely have to have a lawyer for this. This is too heavy for me to do. 24 25 199 Question: Are you fully awake and understand everything that I'm saying to you? Answer: I'm still half asleep right now, but I'm awake enough to, hey, this is a heavy charge, and I'm not even going to sit here and take this on myself and try to talk about it. Huh-uh, not this kid. Now if it something like a burglary, I wouldn't mind it. But I mean Christ, this -- you're talking about murder. Mr. Porter: That's right, we are. He goes on and on and on. That's right we are. The witness: Jesus, look, I've done a lot of things a lot of them weren't always nice. I ain't ever killed nobody, especially not no seven year old girl. The officer goes on. Well, it's your right to exercise however you want to do it, you know. All we -- all -- you know we're giving you opportunity to talk to us, but we're required by law to advise you of what your rights are before we do. You know, we're more than willing to A-4i 200 sit here and listen to your side of the story and ask you questions and let you answer them, but we have to advise you of your rights. And before we can ask you any questions, you have to intelligently waive those rights. . . If you like, and if it's your decision not to talk to us without a lawyer, fine, we'll terminate the interview. If it's your decision that you want me to read, re-read something, or whatever you want, you just, you tell us, but we have to know. It's your decision to make, Bryan, you know; I can't make it for you. Like I say, we're here giving you the opportunity to talk about it and, you know, it's your decision to make. All right. The defendant says, All right. Tell me -- tell you what, give me about five minutes, walk down here to the bathroom to get some water and clear my head a little bit -- Question: Absolutely. Answer: -- and we'll talk. And the Court held that was a waiver of the ad w 201 defendant's rights under Miranda. Case of Waterhouse versus the State found at 429 So.2d 301, Supreme Court again, 1983, in the Waterhouse decision, On January 9, after making certair statements in the car on the way to the station, appellant said,'I think I want to talk to an attorney before I say anything else.' At this point the officers ceased guestioning him. Then, when appellant was being processed into the jail on the charge of murder,. . the Detective asked him . « whether he would like her to come to his cell, talk to him, and answer any questions that he might have. Court pointed out He seemed interested, so detectives. . . went to talk to him at 2:00 a.m. At this point appellant became emotionally upset and made certain statements described previously. The conversation ended when appellant said, ‘I think I'd like to talk to my attorney. Would you all come back tomorrow?' Then on the following day there 26 2s was further interrogation eliciting statements entered into evidence. The Court held that the statement taken the next Gay did not violate the defendant's right to remain silent or his request for an attorney. The defendant cited Edwards as has been cited here. The Court said, Edwards does not apply here because appellant did not express a desire to deal with police only through counsel. fis statements that he should talk to an attorney, were at most equivocal requests to consult with counsel. The officers were not prohibited from initiating further communication for the purpose of clarifying appellant's request. In King versus the State, another Supreme Court case, 1983, found at 436 So.2d, Page 50, in this situation, -- if I can finds this situation -- In King, the Supreme Court again distinguished Edwards to allow into evidence confessions to a Daytona Beach police officer and Orlando police officer, all the defendant had said prior to the statement is, “I think I need an attorney.” After hearing that, the detective stated, quote, A=% 203° ‘we're only here to talk to you about what the detective from Daytona Beach talked to you about.’ And the defendant confessed. The statement was not taken in violation of Edwards, and the Court stated, We conclude that appellant gave the statement to the Orlando police officers voluntarily, with full knowledge of his right to counsel, and with knowledge thet dy giving the statement under the circumstances, he was waiving his right to counsel. This was clearly not @ situation as that in Edwards, where the defendant stated, "I want a attorney before making 2 deal, and was consequently advised that he had talk to the detectives. Again found that the statement made to the police officer was voluntarily and was done after a waiver of Constitutional rights even in light of the statement made by the Defendant King, ‘I need to talk toa lawyer.*. Judge, we can go on citing cases. Mr. Grantha> cited cases in Cannady that came from South Dakota ans I believe Montana. In the Cannady case, the Court also cites in a paragraph after those cases that Mr. 24 25 Grantham cited s series of cases from other jurisdictions where it was held that the same types of requests or statements that were made did not constitute a waiver. For instance, as Mr. Grantham pointed out, Although the defendant's statement,'I think I need to see an attorney’ was neither ‘sophisticated’ nor, perhaps, in ‘legally Proper form,* it was sufficient ... to put the police officers on notice... of the right to counsel, from Montana. From the State of Illinois, the defendant's remark was "Maybe I ought to have an attorney. Maybe I need a lawyer. Maybe I ought to talk to an attorney,” was not a request for counsel. In that case, cert. was denied by the United States Supreme Court. What the case says it is not what the Gefendant says, it is the context in which the defendant makes the statement. It's like most other close questions in any matterc of law. It is the circumstances of a particular decision or a particular Situation that give rise to the determination as to whether, considering all the facts and circumstances, 204 A-le the defendant had his rights tromped on. In the Cannady case, the Court says at page 728, . « « the context in which appellant said he thought he should call his lawyer made it impossible for Officer McKeithen to @ w determine whether appellant was regque to sex an attorney. While expressing a desire to speak to an attorney, which presumably indicates a wish not to answer any more questions, appellant was also readily confessing his guilt i al @ ") @® ww ? @ { ’ Saying he did not mean to kill the man, thereby indicating a desire to continue talking to the police without the benefit wr oO an attorney's presence. When a person expresses both a desire for counsel and a desire to continue the interview without counsel, further inguiry is limited to. . determining what the officer -- or what the defendant wunts to do. In this situation, Officer McKeithen put the phone in front of him, the man continued to talk. Ané the situation we have here, the officer didn't say anything other than we've been honest with you, you be honest with us, and the defendant at that point 24 25 206 continued to talk about the murdered girls. Again I'd suggest to the Court that it's a case-by-case situation. The only other evidence that we have that points to what the defendant's state of mind was on the night of November 16, 1984, when he confessed is part of a letter that was identified during the course of the hearing as coming from the pen of Bobby Joe Long in the letter that he says, They had tire prints, hair, fiber, blood samples, .. .« And then goes on up in the corner, I mean they had me, so I thought if I cooperate, it would go better on me. I was wrong, but I learned if I ever get out shoot first, ask questions later, and don't say shit to the police except I want a lawyer. Live and learn but I don't forget. I think that this speaks directly to what the defendant's state of mind was on the night of the 16th. He was never promised anything; the defendant waived his rights. Be decided he'd cooperate and now he thinks he's done the wrong thing. It's too late. I suggest that the motion be denied. THE COURT: Anything else, gentlemen? MR. GRANTHAM: Just a few brief points. 24 25 THE COURT: Are you going to be brief? MR. GRANTHAM: I thought the Court asked if we had anything further. THE COURT: I didn't know you had further argument. MR. GRANTHAM: In every one of the State's cases where there was a statement, they either stopped, gave them a phone, or clarified the request which is exactly what was not done here. And as far as the letter that was read that Mr. Long had allegedly written, they had him -- I would point out everything that he based that on -- almost everything was a lie from the police officers and th fw ct would show he was deluded and misled into making any statement beyond the Fifth Amendment issue. THE COURT: That prompt any further comment, Mr. Van Allen? MR. VAN ALLEN: No, sir. THE COURT: Gentleman, number one, I thank you for your efforts. Number two, I'm going to find from the evidence that there's been no violation of Mr. Long's Constitutional rights, that the statement sought to be introduced was freely and voluntarily made. Motion will be respectfully denied. I thank you. A-a9 | 24 25 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PASCO I, PHYLLIS M. DAVIS, Deputy Official Court Reporter in and for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that proceedings were had in the captioned matter at the time and place set forth herein; that I was authorized to and did report stenographically said proceedings and testimony, and that the foregoing pages, numbered 1 through 212, inclusive, constitute a true and correct transcription of said proceedings and testimony as had. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this UK of » 1985, at Dade City, Pasco County, Florida. 213 Deputy Official Court Reporter --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_1566%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.