K. L. C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

K. L. C. v. State

379 So. 2d 455, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15778

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 1980

DocketNo. PP-90

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 379 So. 2d 455 (K. L. C. 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

K. L. C. v. State, 379 So. 2d 455, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15778 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

K.L.C., a fifteen-year-old male, appeals from a circuit court judgment that he is delinquent, having attempted to commit robbery. The judgment is based in part on K.L.C.’s confession obtained after he was appropriately Miranda -warned, immediately upon being questioned at headquarters following his arrest at home.

The trial court found, and we agree, that there was no unreasonable delay in delivering K.L.C. to an intake officer. Section 39.03(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). Nor do we find a violation of that statute’s requirement that the police, determining “that the [456]*456child should be detained”, must make “a reasonable effort to immediately notify the parents . . In this case the parents were so notified because they were at home when their son was arrested. This case is unlike Dowst v. State, 336 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) and J.E.S. v. State, 366 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), in which either the child or the parents, being notified of the arrest, requested and were denied a reasonable opportunity to confer. The obligation of the arresting officers is to notify the parents and, if requested, to grant them and the child a reasonable opportunity to confer before in-custody questioning begins. The police obligation does not extend to offering a conference opportunity which is not requested.

AFFIRMED.

LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

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

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

K.L.C., a fifteen-year-old male, appeals from a circuit court judgment that he is delinquent, having attempted to commit robbery. The judgment is based in part on K.L.C.’s confession obtained after he was appropriately Miranda -warned, immediately upon being questioned at headquarters following his arrest at home.

The trial court found, and we agree, that there was no unreasonable delay in delivering K.L.C. to an intake officer. Section 39.03(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). Nor do we find a violation of that statute’s requirement that the police, determining “that the [456]*456child should be detained”, must make “a reasonable effort to immediately notify the parents . . In this case the parents were so notified because they were at home when their son was arrested. This case is unlike Dowst v. State, 336 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) and J.E.S. v. State, 366 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), in which either the child or the parents, being notified of the arrest, requested and were denied a reasonable opportunity to confer. The obligation of the arresting officers is to notify the parents and, if requested, to grant them and the child a reasonable opportunity to confer before in-custody questioning begins. The police obligation does not extend to offering a conference opportunity which is not requested.

AFFIRMED.

LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 So. 2d 455, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/k-l-c-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack