Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Ronald G. DEMUYNCK, Appellee.
In this appeal, the State challenges the trial court's order suppressing Ronald Demuynck's statements made to a polygraph examiner and a detective and statements made in the office of a psychologist. We affirm.
The trial court granted the motion to suppress the statements made to the polygraph examiner and the detective on two grounds: the statements were made while in custody and without the benefit of Miranda 1 warnings, and the statements were coerced. The trial court suppressed the statements Demuynck made in the psychologist's office as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
It is undisputed that Demuynck voluntarily submitted to the polygraph examination and was, at all times, free to leave. On appeal, Demuynck does not dispute the State's contention that he was not in custody during the examination or while being interviewed by the detective afterward. Therefore, the trial court erred by suppressing the statements on the basis of a Miranda violation. See Davis v. State, 698 So.2d 1182, 1188 (Fla.1997) (“Miranda warnings are required whenever the State seeks to introduce against a defendant statements made by the defendant while in custody and under interrogation. Absent one or the other, Miranda warnings are not required.”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1127, 118 S.Ct. 1076, 140 L.Ed.2d 134 (1998). Nevertheless, we affirm the suppression of those statements because the record supports the trial court's additional conclusion that the statements were coerced, and therefore, are not admissible. See Brewer v. State, 386 So.2d 232 (Fla.1980).
The record also supports the trial court's decision to suppress the statements made in the psychologist's office as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” 2 because they cannot be sufficiently separated from the prior coercion.
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
2. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
FULMER, Judge.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 2D98-3536.
Decided: January 28, 2000
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Second District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)