Bell v. State, 201 So. 3d 1267

Police executed a search warrant arresting Keith Crump for child pornography; Crump implicated appellant Tavis Lee Bell and two minors in Bell’s custody.
Detectives asked Bell to come to the Polk County Sheriff’s operations center; Bell voluntarily went with his adult son and was told he was not under arrest and was free to leave before the first interview.
Bell underwent a first recorded interview (~40 minutes) in which he denied sexual conduct; detectives then interviewed Crump, the children, and Bell’s adult son, obtaining statements from the children implicating Bell.
Bell waited in a locked-access conference area for several hours; detectives then summoned him for a second recorded interview beginning ~11:15 p.m.; Bell was not given Miranda warnings before the second interview.
During the second interview detectives confronted Bell with purported evidence and repeated claims that the children had told the same story; Bell ultimately made incriminating admissions; he was formally arrested about 30 minutes after the interview ended.
Bell moved to suppress the second statement; the trial court denied suppression, he was convicted on multiple counts, and appealed.

Issue	Bell's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the second interview was custodial so Miranda warnings were required	Second interview had become custodial because of prolonged stationhouse presence, separation from family, children in protective custody, and confrontational questioning; Miranda required	Interview was voluntary and noncustodial; Bell came voluntarily and had been told he could leave; detectives lacked probable cause to arrest before second interview	Court held the second interview was custodial; Miranda warnings were required and not given, so statements must be suppressed
Whether admission of the unwarned second statement was harmless error	The admission was prejudicial; the second statement materially contributed to the verdict given weaknesses in other evidence	Even without the second statement, the other evidence (Crump and the children) proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Error was not harmless; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial with the second statement excluded

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes Miranda warnings requirement for custodial interrogation)
Ramirez v. State, 739 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1999) (adopts four-factor test to determine custody for Miranda purposes)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) (Miranda is prophylactic and can require exclusion even absent traditional Fifth Amendment coercion)
DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error standard for constitutional error in criminal cases)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (officer’s undisclosed beliefs about custody are irrelevant unless conveyed to suspect)
State v. McAdams, 193 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 2016) (an interview may evolve from noncustodial to custodial over time)