Opinion ID: 1129352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Custody/Arrest

Text: Schoenwetter basically argues his statements should have been suppressed as involuntary because he was essentially arrested without probable cause and because he was not given proper Miranda warnings. In denying the motions to suppress, the trial court relied on evidence from Detective Butler, Officer House, and the videotape of the interrogation. The trial court found that Schoenwetter was not arrested but voluntarily consented to accompany the officers to the police station and that Schoenwetter was given Miranda warnings once he made incriminating statements. In addition, the trial court found that the defendant waived his rights in writing. We find the trial court's factual findings on these issues are supported by competent substantial evidence, and we affirm the trial court's conclusion that Schoenwetter's statements were voluntary. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Schoenwetter's motion to suppress statements. The trial court relied on this Court's opinion in Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla.1999), in reaching its determination that Schoenwetter was not in custody or otherwise arrested at the time he made his statements to the police. In Ramirez, we said: A person is in custody if a reasonable person placed in the same position would believe that his or her freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with actual arrest. The proper inquiry is not the unarticulated plan of the police, but rather how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have perceived the situation. Id. at 573 (citations omitted) (quoting Davis v. State, 698 So.2d 1182, 1188 (Fla. 1997)). We set out in Ramirez the following four factors for a trial court to consider in determining if a suspect is in custody: (1) the manner in which the police summon the suspect for questioning; (2) the purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation; (3) the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his or her guilt; and (4) whether the suspect is informed that he or she is free to leave the place of questioning. See id. at 574. The facts of this case illustrate that Schoenwetter was not in custody. First, the detectives asked Schoenwetter if he would come to the police station to talk to them and he agreed, but stated he would have to be back by 4 p.m. to go to work. Moreover, Schoenwetter was not handcuffed and he was able to exit the car when they stopped for a snack. Second, the purpose of the interrogation was clear from Detective Butler's testimony that Schoenwetter appeared nervous, he had a cut on his hand, he was out and about on his bike the night before, and he knew the victims. Third, Schoenwetter was confronted with some evidence which implicated him in the murders. Detective Butler told Schoenwetter that there was a blood trail which led from the victim's house to his house and he had a cut on his hand. Also, Detective Butler stated that the person who committed the crime left on a bike. Fourth, Schoenwetter was not told he was under arrest. When he was asked during the interview if anyone ever told him he was under arrest, he responded, No. As did the defendant in Taylor v. State, 855 So.2d 1 (Fla.2003), Schoenwetter argues that he was under de facto arrest when he was taken to the police station and, therefore, he argues his subsequent confession to the detective about the burglary was the fruit of an illegal arrest. However, in Taylor, we did not find the defendant was under de facto arrest, because Taylor voluntarily agreed to accompany the officers to the station, he was not handcuffed during the ride, he was only handcuffed after arrival for safety purposes, and the officer explained that he was not under arrest. We said to find a defendant to be in custody, it must be evident that, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the suspect's position would feel a restraint of his or her freedom of movement, fairly characterized, so that the suspect would not feel free to leave or to terminate the encounter with police. Id. at 17-18 (quoting Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598, 605 (Fla.2001)). Similar to Taylor, Schoenwetter in this case voluntarily agreed to accompany the officers to the station when asked, rode in the back of the police car without handcuffs, and exited the car when officers stopped for a snack. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel a restraint on his freedom or that he was not free to terminate the encounter. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.