State v. Sherrod

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Sherrod

893 So. 2d 654, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1590, 2005 WL 357004

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 2005

DocketNo. 4D03-3040

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 893 So. 2d 654 (State v. Sherrod) 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. Sherrod, 893 So. 2d 654, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1590, 2005 WL 357004 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that de[655]*655fendant was in custody, but not given a Miranda¹ warning before admitting, in response to a question from the officer, that he had drug paraphernalia in his pocket. We reverse.

Defendant was stopped for riding a bicycle at night without proper reflectors and, after being asked by the deputy whether he had weapons or drugs on him, responded that he had drug paraphernalia, which he handed to the deputy. The trial court granted the motion to suppress because it concluded that defendant was not free to leave and that this required a Miranda warning before questioning. The court reasoned that this was the equivalent of custodial interrogation; however, we agree with the state that there was nothing which occurred during this valid stop which would have transformed it into a custodial interrogation. Reversed.

STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

KLEIN, J.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that de[655]*655fendant was in custody, but not given a Miranda¹ warning before admitting, in response to a question from the officer, that he had drug paraphernalia in his pocket. We reverse.

Defendant was stopped for riding a bicycle at night without proper reflectors and, after being asked by the deputy whether he had weapons or drugs on him, responded that he had drug paraphernalia, which he handed to the deputy. The trial court granted the motion to suppress because it concluded that defendant was not free to leave and that this required a Miranda warning before questioning. The court reasoned that this was the equivalent of custodial interrogation; however, we agree with the state that there was nothing which occurred during this valid stop which would have transformed it into a custodial interrogation. Reversed.

STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

893 So. 2d 654, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1590, 2005 WL 357004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sherrod-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack