159 So. 3d 293
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Detective Tiburzio called and asked Robert Hineline to come to the police station to discuss a referral alleging Hineline touched a 12‑year‑old; Hineline voluntarily came to the station and was not under arrest.
- At the station Tiburzio read Miranda rights from a waiver form, asked if Hineline wished to talk, and recorded the interview; Hineline signed the waiver and made written and oral inculpatory statements.
- During the recorded exchange, after rights were read, Hineline asked, “do you think I’m going to need a lawyer?” and the detective replied, “we’ll discuss that here in just a second…that’s up to you. Do you understand those rights?”
- At a suppression hearing the parties limited the contested issue to the third prong of Almeida: whether the officer made a good‑faith effort to give a simple, straightforward answer to a prefatory question about counsel.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the officer ‘‘glossed over’’ and engaged in ‘‘gamesmanship’’ by saying he would discuss counsel later and not returning to the topic.
- The State appealed; the First DCA reviewed the DVD evidence with a less deferential standard and reversed suppression, holding the officer’s response—viewed in context—satisfied Almeida’s third prong.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hineline's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer made a good‑faith effort to give a simple, straightforward answer to a prefatory question about counsel (Almeida prong 3) | Detective’s reply (“that’s up to you…do you understand?”) honestly and adequately answered the question; Hineline nonetheless waived rights and spoke voluntarily | Detective’s “we’ll discuss that here in just a second” glossed over the question, amounted to gamesmanship/steamrolling, and undermined the waiver | Reversed suppression: in context the officer made a sufficient, truthful, and straightforward response; Miranda does not require legal advice and the defendant’s decision about counsel is his prerogative |
Key Cases Cited
- Almeida v. State, 737 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1999) (announcing three‑prong test for answers to prefatory questions about rights)
- State v. Parker, 144 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (officer’s brief truthful answers to whether defendant needed a lawyer satisfied Almeida prong 3)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings requirement)
- State v. Craig, 237 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1970) (police not required to give legal advice; defendant decides whether to have counsel)