Case ID: so2d_893/html/0654-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KLEIN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert SHERROD, Appellee.
    No. 4D03-3040.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Feb. 16, 2005.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Monique E. LTtalien, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and James W. Mclntire, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   KLEIN, J.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that defendant was in custody, but not given a Miranda 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. 
      
      . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).