Joe v. State, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12989

Chance Joe was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon in Florida and challenged a recorded post-arrest statement.
At custodial interrogation, detective reviewed Miranda rights and asked if Joe understood them and would talk about the incident.
Joe initially indicated willingness to talk, stating he had nothing to say and did not know what happened beyond being shot.
Audio of the interrogation was recorded and admitted at a suppression hearing; Joe argued he unequivocally invoked the right to remain silent.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that Joe waived rights rather than invoked them.
On appeal, the Fourth District upheld the conviction, concluding Joe’s statements indicated a waiver, not an invocation, of the right to silence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Joe's statement was an invocation of the right to silence requiring suppression	Joe argued the statement unequivocally invoked silence.	State contends the statement was a waiver because Joe wanted to talk and did not clearly invoke rights.	Waiver, not invocation; suppression denied.

Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155 (Fla. 2007) (clear invocation may require stopping interrogation; interpreter context analyzed)
Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1999) (police must answer a clear question concerning rights when asked; twin Owen/Almeida rulings)
Owen II (State v. Owen), 696 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1997) (after a prior waiver, equivocal invocations during interrogation are not required to be clarified)
Donovan v. State, 417 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1982) (voluntariness of confessions; mixed question of law and fact)
Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155 (Fla. 2007) (see above)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. Supreme Court 1975) (clarifies timing of invoking rights and requests for clarification)