Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. David Andrew FAVALORO, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-12-07
Citations: 424 So. 2d 47
Docket Number: No. 82-141
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. David Andrew FAVALORO, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, FERGUSON and JOR-GENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 424
Pages: 47–48

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. David Andrew FAVALORO, Appellee.
No. 82-141.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 7, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1983.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Calianne P. Lantz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Weiner, Robbins, Tunkey & Ross and Geoffrey C. Fleck and Richard A. Sharp-stein, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, FERGUSON and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
FERGUSON, Judge.
After an assessment of the totality of the circumstances, Royer v. State, 389 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Taylor v. State, 355 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), The trial court determined that appellee's consent to a search was not voluntary, but instead was induced by an implied promise that he would not be prosecuted. Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed.2d 568 (1897) [A confession must be free and voluntary; not obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight]; Frazier v. State, 107 So.2d 16 (Fla.1958) [confessions must be excluded if obtained by declarations calculated to delude defendant as to his true position]; Foreman v. State, 400 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) [officer's statement that the victim was inclined not to prosecute if property were returned clearly constitutes an implied promise calculated to induce a confession]; Hawthorne v. State, 377 So.2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) [confession invalid where officer told defendant her giving a statement would eliminate need for further harsh questioning of separately held children]; Fillinger v. State, 349 So.2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) [confession induced by promises of leniency was invalid]; cf. Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341, 83 S.Ct. 448, 9 L.Ed.2d 357, reh. denied, 372 U.S. 950, 83 S.Ct. 931, 9 L.Ed.2d 975 (1963) [admission of fraudulent disclosures made as a product of an unlawful inducement do not offend the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment]. Findings made by a trial judge on a motion to suppress must be accepted, where as here the record reveals evidence to support the findings. State v. Battleman, 374 So.2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Affirmed.