State v. Contreras

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Contreras

780 So. 2d 1034, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4317, 2001 WL 321568

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 4, 2001

DocketNo. 4D00-1687

StatusPublished

This text of 780 So. 2d 1034 (State v. Contreras) 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

State v. Contreras, 780 So. 2d 1034, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4317, 2001 WL 321568 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals an order of the Palm Beach County circuit court granting defen[1035]*1035dant Rodolfo Contreras’ (appellee) motion to suppress his confession to sexually molesting his daughter.

Upon being questioned by a police detective, appellee inquired “Do I need an attorney?” The detective replied, “Since you brought it up, let me read you your rights and you can make your decision based on me reading you your rights.” Appellee later confessed. The trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress on the basis of Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520 (Fla.1999), and our decision in Glatzmayer v. State, 754 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding where the police do not provide a straightforward answer to a suspect’s question regarding his Miranda rights, a resulting confession is inadmissa-ble), review granted, 767 So.2d 461 (Fla.2000).

Accordingly, we affirm.

SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. KLEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals an order of the Palm Beach County circuit court granting defen[1035]*1035dant Rodolfo Contreras’ (appellee) motion to suppress his confession to sexually molesting his daughter.

Upon being questioned by a police detective, appellee inquired “Do I need an attorney?” The detective replied, “Since you brought it up, let me read you your rights and you can make your decision based on me reading you your rights.” Appellee later confessed. The trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress on the basis of Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520 (Fla.1999), and our decision in Glatzmayer v. State, 754 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding where the police do not provide a straightforward answer to a suspect’s question regarding his Miranda rights, a resulting confession is inadmissa-ble), review granted, 767 So.2d 461 (Fla.2000).

Accordingly, we affirm.

SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. KLEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

780 So. 2d 1034, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4317, 2001 WL 321568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-contreras-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack