Drout v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Drout v. State

99 So. 3d 549, 2011 WL 3300387, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12137

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 2011

DocketNo. 3D10-563

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 So. 3d 549 (Drout v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drout v. State, 99 So. 3d 549, 2011 WL 3300387, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12137 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his pre-Miranda¹ statements. Because the record fully supports the trial court’s finding that the statements were spontaneously uttered and not the product of the functional equivalent of a police interrogation, we affirm. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); Rodriguez v. State, 906 So.2d 1082, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA2004).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROTHENBERG, J.

The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his pre-Miranda¹ statements. Because the record fully supports the trial court’s finding that the statements were spontaneously uttered and not the product of the functional equivalent of a police interrogation, we affirm. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); Rodriguez v. State, 906 So.2d 1082, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA2004).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 3d 549, 2011 WL 3300387, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drout-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack