State v. Looney

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Looney

711 So. 2d 571, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14459, 1997 WL 817824

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 31, 1997

DocketNo. 97-01068

StatusPublished

This text of 711 So. 2d 571 (State v. Looney) 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. Looney, 711 So. 2d 571, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14459, 1997 WL 817824 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

The State challenges the trial court’s suppression of statements made by the appellee after he equivocally asserted his rights during an interview with a police detective. When the trial court excluded the statements, it did not have the benefit of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, Owen v. Florida, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 574, 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997). We reverse because in Owen, the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no obligation to clarify a suspect’s equivocal or ambiguous request for counsel before continuing to question him. 696 So.2d at 717. The trial court correctly determined that the appellee’s request was equivocal, but under the new legal standard we must reverse the suppression of the ap-pellee’s statements.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FICARROTTA, GASPER J., Associate Judge, concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

The State challenges the trial court’s suppression of statements made by the appellee after he equivocally asserted his rights during an interview with a police detective. When the trial court excluded the statements, it did not have the benefit of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, Owen v. Florida, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 574, 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997). We reverse because in Owen, the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no obligation to clarify a suspect’s equivocal or ambiguous request for counsel before continuing to question him. 696 So.2d at 717. The trial court correctly determined that the appellee’s request was equivocal, but under the new legal standard we must reverse the suppression of the ap-pellee’s statements.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FICARROTTA, GASPER J., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 So. 2d 571, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14459, 1997 WL 817824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-looney-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack