Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Randy John WILSON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-01-07
Citations: 747 So. 2d 1051
Docket Number: No. 5D98-1372
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Randy John WILSON, Appellee.
Judges: W. SHARP, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 747
Pages: 1051–1053

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Randy John WILSON, Appellee.
No. 5D98-1372.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 7, 2000.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General,Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Rosemarie Farrell, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
ANTOON, C.J.
Randy John Wilson made inculpatory statements while speaking to an Orange County deputy who was investigating the theft of a fax machine and other office equipment. After he was arrested and charged with committing the theft, Mr. Wilson filed a pretrial motion to suppress his statement on grounds that he was in custody at the time the statements were made yet he was not given the requisite Miranda warnings. The trial court granted the motion. Upon review, we reverse, concluding that Miranda warnings were not required under the facts of this case.
In Caso v. State, 524 So.2d 422 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 870, 109 S.Ct. 178, 102 L.Ed.2d 147 (1988), our supreme court emphasized that Miranda warnings are required as a protection against the practice of coercing statements from defendants only during custodial interrogation:
In [Miranda], the United States Supreme Court established a procedural safeguard to protect an individual's fifth amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination from the coercive pressures of custodial interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The procedural safeguard does not, however, apply "outside the context of the inherently coercive custodial interrogations for which it was designed." Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 560, 100 S.Ct. 1358, 1364, 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980). The police are required to give [Miranda] warnings only when the person is in custody. California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1124, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 3519, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983). In determining whether a suspect is in custody, "the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest." Id. at 1125, 103 S.Ct. at 3520 (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)). As this Court and the United States Supreme Court have previously recognized, "the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation." Roman v. State, 475 So.2d 1228, 1231 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1090, 106 S.Ct. 1480, 89 L.Ed.2d 734 (1986)(quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)).
524 So.2d at 423. In short, if a defendant is not in custody, then no Miranda warnings are required.
Ordinarily, appellate courts give deference to a trial court's ruling with regard to whether a defendant is in custody at the time incriminating statements are made. Notwithstanding this deference, reversal is required if the ruling is not supported by competent substantial evidence. See State v. J.Y., 623 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Here, the only testimony submitted during the suppression hearing was that of the deputy sheriff to whom Mr. Wilson's statements were made. The Orange County deputy testified that he traveled to Mr. Wilson's home in Osceola County in order to investigate whether Mr. Wilson had attempted to pawn a stolen fax machine in Tampa. When he arrived, Mr. Wilson came to the door and the deputy remained in the yard. The deputy explained to Mr. Wilson that he was investigating the burglary of a fax machine from a business in Orange County. When the deputy suggested that they should try to get the property back to the owner, Mr. Wilson told the deputy where certain other items of stolen property were located. Then, in response to the deputy's statement that he thought the owner just wanted his equipment back, Mr. Wilson explained how he had committed the burglary. The deputy handed Mr. Wilson his business card and said to give him a call in order to "take care of this matter." The deputy then left. All of these events occurred in Osceola County, outside the deputy's jurisdiction.
This testimony fails to reveal any fact that would lead to the conclusion that a reasonable person in Mr. Wilson's position would believe that he was in police custody at the time he made his inculpatory statements. No evidence was adduced indicating that, during his conversation with Mr. Wilson, the deputy used threatening or commanding language; brandished a weapon or made any threatening gestures; or that he touched or approached Mr. Wilson. Furthermore, the entire conversation occurred while Mr. Wilson was standing outside the front door of his house and the deputy was standing in the front yard. Since, at no time did the deputy do any thing or say anything to indicate to Mr. Wilson that he was in police custody, Miranda warnings were not required. Accordingly, we must reverse the trial court's order suppressing Mr. Wilson's statements.
Order REVERSED; cause REMANDED for further proceedings.
W. SHARP, J., concurs.
THOMPSON, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).