Opinion ID: 1813641
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Invalid Acquisition of the Saliva Swabs and the Erroneous Admission of this Evidence

Text: On December 11, 2001 (six to seven days after the Pink Magnolia burglary), Lake City police officers approached and arrested Mr. Wyche on the basis of then-active, unrelated warrants. Once the police took Wyche into custody, he was transported to a police station and Investigator Clint VanBennekom subjected him to custodial interrogation. [17] Based on the record before us, Investigator VanBennekom lacked probable cause, a reasonable, articulable suspicion, or any cause to arrest or detain Mr. Wyche with regard to the Pink Magnolia burglary. See, e.g., Maynard, 783 So.2d at 229. Further, as the State and defense counsel have stipulated, Investigator VanBennekom testified under oath during his September 29, 2003, depositionwhich occurred approximately two weeks before Wyche's trialthat he intentionally lied to Mr. Wyche by accusing him of a fabricated burglary for the purpose of inducing Wyche to consent to a saliva-swab search. Cf. United States v. Montoya, 760 F.Supp. 37, 39-40 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) ([O]fficers cannot use a ruse to gain access unless they have more than mere conjecture that criminal activity is underway. (emphasis supplied) (quoting United States v. Maldonado Garcia, 655 F.Supp. 1363, 1367 (D.P.R.1987))); 1 Criminal Practice Manual § 25.91 (Thomson-West 2008 ed.) (One prerequisite common to all of these [deception-induced] searches is that the police must have a reasonable basis to believe criminal activity is ongoing in the place to be searched; they cannot simply be on a `fishing' expedition.  (emphasis supplied)). VanBennekom was actually investigating an unrelated sexual-assault case, and the record contains no indication that he possessed probable cause, a reasonable, articulable suspicion, or any cause whatsoever to justifiably believe that Wyche committed that offense, nor is there any indication that VanBennekom questioned Wyche with regard to that offense. In fact, Wyche's genetic material exonerated him with regard to the sexual assault. The major theme of this case the apparent lack of genuine, honest investigative workstarkly contrasts with the readily identifiable presence of police fishing expeditions, or as Judge Ervin stated in his dissenting opinion belowcrime shopping. Wyche, 906 So.2d at 1149 (Ervin, J., dissenting). It was VanBennekom's goal to bait Wyche with the evanescent, false hope of exonerating himself with regard to a fabricated, yet ostensibly valid and serious felony offense. Cf. United States v. Carter, 884 F.2d 368, 375 (8th Cir.1989) (police deception, ruses, and misrepresentations may be considered along with other factors as part of the totality of circumstances); United States v. Bosse, 898 F.2d 113, 115 (9th Cir.1990) ( Special limitations apply when a government agent obtains entry by misrepresenting the scope, nature or purpose of a government investigation. `[A]ccess gained by a government agent, known to be such by the person with whom the agent is dealing, violates the fourth amendment's bar against unreasonable searches and seizures if such entry was acquired by affirmative or deliberate misrepresentation of the nature of the government's investigation.' (emphasis supplied) (quoting United States v. Little, 753 F.2d 1420, 1438 (9th Cir.1984))). Investigator VanBennekom never questioned Mr. Wyche concerning the Pink Magnolia burglary and never informed Wyche that he was a suspect with regard to that offense. Moreover, Investigator Moodyperhaps unintentionally aided in the concealment of VanBennekom's fabrication by stating in a sworn complaintdated October 2, 2002that [Wyche] was arrested and brought to the police station and interviewed by Inv. C. Vanbennekom. [Wyche] denied any knowledge of the crime and gave two swab saliva sample's [sic] to Inv. Vanbennekom who then turned them over to me. (Emphasis supplied.) Moody was investigating the Pink Magnolia burglary and the sworn complaint related to that crime, while VanBennekom was investigating a fabricated burglary case and an actual sexual-assault case. Hence, Moody's sworn complaint inaccurately and misleadingly insinuated that Wyche was questioned with regard to the Pink Magnolia burglary, that he denied his involvement, and that he voluntarily consented to a saliva-swab search. [18] This characterization of that interrogation was and is simply false. The fraudulent subterfuge having failed with regard to the sexual-assault case, Investigator VanBennekomwithout probable cause, articulable suspicion, or any justifiable basisthen transferred the saliva swabs to Investigator Moody, who in turn submitted the swabs to FDLE for DNA analysis in comparison to the two blood samples recovered from the Pink Magnolia. Moody submitted the swabs on December 27, 2001, a little over two weeks after VanBennekom's deceptive custodial interrogation of Wyche. Investigator Moody received the FDLE test results on October 2, 2002, which disclosed a match between the invalidly obtained saliva swabs and the two Pink Magnolia blood samples. In sum, Investigator Moody without any discernable, genuine investigative workgot lucky in the crime-shopping spree then unfolding at the Lake City Police Department. Also noticeably absent from the record is any indication that Mr. Wychean in-custody suspectwas informed of his Miranda rights, that he executed a consent-search form, or that he was otherwise informed of his constitutional rights. While none of these factors are dispositive under Schneckloth, they are nevertheless well-established considerations that inform a totality-of-circumstances voluntariness inquiry and are simply not addressed in the majority's analysis. See, e.g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424-25, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976) (identifying whether the defendant received proper Miranda warnings and whether the defendant knew he or she could withhold his or her consent as relevant voluntariness factors); United States v. Davis, 749 F.2d 292, 296 (5th Cir.1985) (identifying the defendant's awareness of his right to refuse to consent to the search as a relevant voluntariness factor); United States v. Juarez, 573 F.2d 267, 274 (5th Cir.1978) (identifying receipt of proper Miranda warnings and knowledge of the constitutional right to refuse consent as relevant voluntariness factors); United States v. Worley, 193 F.3d 380, 386-87 (6th Cir. 1999) (substantially similar). We do, however, have Investigator VanBennekom and the State's bold claim that VanBennekom was justifiably ignorant of the fact that police deception is a factor which contributes to involuntary consents and confessions. Below, during argument on the motion to suppress, the State relied on Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969), to justify this protestation of ignorance; however, even that case recognized that some types and gradations of police deception may suffice to render a confession involuntary. See id. at 739, 89 S.Ct. 1420. Although in Frazier, the High Court held that an instance of intrinsic police deception [19] did not vitiate the voluntariness of the defendant's confession under the totality of circumstances present in that case, see id., [20] Frazier does not stand for the unsubstantiated legal proposition that the police possess carte blanche to deceive suspects into relinquishing their constitutional rights under all circumstances. See id.; see also Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 225, 93 S.Ct. 2041 (noting that the police do not possess carte blanche to extract what they can from a suspect); Lynumn, 372 U.S. at 529-34, 83 S.Ct. 917 ( police misrepresentation with regard to financial assistance to, and custody of, suspect's children rendered suspect's incriminatory statements involuntary); Spano, 360 U.S. at 320-23, 79 S.Ct. 1202 ( misrepresentation by the suspect's childhood friend a police officer that the friend would lose his job as a law enforcement officer if the suspect failed to cooperate rendered the suspect's incriminatory statements involuntary). It is constitutionally mandated that we follow federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence; specifically, that of the United States Supreme Court. See art. I, § 12, Fla. Const. Further, Schneckloth's voluntariness test is a derivative doctrine drawn from Fifth Amendment confession jurisprudence. See 412 U.S. at 225-26, 93 S.Ct. 2041. Thus, I do not find it unreasonable or unnecessarily burdensome for this Court to require that the law enforcement personnel of this State possess at least a rudimentary understanding that not all instances of police deception are permissible under federal Fourth and Fifth Amendment doctrine. Florida law enforcement personnel, in my view, are sophisticated, talented, and well advised and informed. The Federal Bureau of Investigation does not appear to entertain any doubts on this subject, and that agency provides the following guidance to its special agents: Use of physical force or threats ... will render a consent involuntary. Likewise, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation will taint the consent. But a consent to enter, obtained by such means in an undercover operation is proper. FBI, Legal Handbook for Special Agents § 5-4.5, at 19 (photo. reprint 2003) (copy on file with Florida Supreme Court Library) (emphasis supplied). [21] As explained below, much if not all of the federal case law that the Legal Handbook undoubtedly relied upon predates the events of this case, most of which occurred during 2001 and 2002. However, even if VanBennekom and his colleagues were unaware of applicable federal case law, our own confession case law and other Florida decisions, many of which predate 2001, consider the type and extent of police deception a relevant voluntariness factor. If we are to remain faithful to our duty to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of this State, we cannot hold Florida's police officers to a lesser standard of required knowledge. Wyche officially became a suspect in the Pink Magnolia burglary on October 2, 2002. He was later arrested on April, 7, 2003, was arraigned on April 15, 2003, and pled not guilty in response to a three-count information. [22] On October 14, 2003, Wyche submitted a timely motion to suppress the saliva swabs, which he predicated upon the Fourth District's then-binding McCord opinion. The motion to suppress was timely under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(h)(4), despite the trial court's facial ruling to the contrary. The rule merely states that [t]he motion to suppress shall be made before trial unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion, but the court may entertain the motion or an appropriate objection at the trial. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(h)(4) (emphasis supplied). Here, defense counsel was not aware of the fact that Investigator VanBennekom had fabricated a felony offense to induce Wyche's consent to the saliva-swab search until September 29, 2003, which was a mere fifteen days before defense counsel submitted Wyche's motion to suppress on October, 14, 2003. Moreover, defense counsel submitted the motion to suppress before the jury was sworn and before jeopardy had attached. This timeframe included ten business days, [23] which is well within the reasonably required amount of time to properly research and draft a motion to suppress. Jury selection also took place during this timeframe, further accounting for defense counsel's supposed delay in submitting the motion to suppress. In my view, the facial denial of the motion to suppress as untimely did not comport with the dictates of rule 3.190(h)(4). Similarly, the motion to suppress did not seek retroactive application of case law. Since at least the mid-to-late 1970s, police deception has been a relevant voluntariness factor for federal courts in applying a Schneckloth totality analysis, and this Court is bound by our State Constitution to interpret and apply federal Fourth Amendment doctrine. See, e.g., Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 226-49, 93 S.Ct. 2041 (mandating that the totality-based voluntariness test include examination and consideration of  all the surrounding circumstances (emphasis supplied)); United States v. Bosse, 898 F.2d 113, 115 (9th Cir.1990) (identifying police deception as a relevant voluntariness factor); United States v. Carter, 884 F.2d 368, 370-71 (8th Cir.1989) (same); United States v. Andrews, 746 F.2d 247, 250, 250 n. 4 (5th Cir.1984) (same), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Hurtado, 905 F.2d 74, 75 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Griffin, 530 F.2d 739, 742-43 (7th Cir. 1976) (same); United States v. Hrdlicka, 520 F.Supp. 403, 409 (W.D.Wis.1981) (same). [24] Further, confession cases from the United States Supreme Court and from Florida's appellate courts hold that the type and extent of police deception is a relevant voluntariness factor to consider under the totality of circumstances. See, e.g., Frazier, 394 U.S. at 739, 89 S.Ct. 1420; Lynumn, 372 U.S. at 529-34, 83 S.Ct. 917; Spano, 360 U.S. at 320-23, 79 S.Ct. 1202; Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 637, 642 (Fla.1995); Thomas v. State, 456 So.2d 454, 458 (Fla.1984); Brewer v. State, 386 So.2d 232, 235-36 (Fla.1980); Chambers v. State, 965 So.2d 376, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ([W]e reach the inescapable conclusion that Chambers'[ ] confession which almost immediately ensued from what was essentially a promise not to charge him with a `fictional' murder if he told the truth rendered his recorded statement and confession unconstitutional as coerced and involuntary. (emphasis supplied)); State v. Cayward, 552 So.2d 971, 973-75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), review dismissed, 562 So.2d 347 (Fla.1990); Samuel, 898 So.2d at 234-37. [25] The State's final two bases for requesting facial denial of the motion to suppress were equally tenuous: (1) the defendant voluntarily consented to the saliva-swab search because the trial court and trial counsel were allegedly certain beyond cavil that the defendant knew he committed a burglary, [26] just not the fabricated crime the police admittedly used to induce his consent; and (2) even if the trial court had granted the defendant's motion to suppress, the State could have compelled him to provide genetic samples pursuant to a rule of criminal procedure and, therefore, the State would inevitably have discovered the defendant's DNA. First, as explained in the analysis section below, police deception did induce Wyche's consent to the saliva-swab search. Logically, in this type of situation, suspects who know that they are innocent as to the felony of which they stand accused will submit to saliva-swab consent searches and correspondingly surrender their Fourth Amendment rights to avoid remaining a suspect with regard to a fabricated, yet ostensibly genuine felony offense. See, e.g., John Wesley Hall, Jr., Search and Seizure § 8.3, at 488 (3d ed. 2000) ([T]he police well know that too many innocent citizens will give up their rights and consent to a search not knowing they have a right to refuse and thinking that `I have nothing to hide so why not get this over with and go on?'). Second, counsel for the State misconstrued the inevitable-discovery doctrine and the exclusionary rule by claiming that even if the trial court had granted the motion to suppress, the State could then simply have required that Mr. Wyche provide additional blood, hair, and other materials of the defendant's body [involving] no unreasonable intrusion thereof. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.220(c)(1)(G). This argument assumes the very component it lacksthe independent existence of probable cause, a reasonable, articulable suspicion, or any justifiable basis to suspect Wyche of having committed the Pink Magnolia burglary. Under the inevitable-discovery doctrine, the State bears the burden of establishing that the evidence would ultimately have been discovered by legal means. Maulden v. State, 617 So.2d 298, 301 (Fla.1993) (emphasis supplied). On this record, Investigator Moody did not have any reliable basis to suspect the defendant with regard to the Pink Magnolia burglary until after he received the very evidence which should have been suppressed. His only real leadthe anonymous phone callwas wholly uncorroborated, was in fact dispelled by subsequent investigation, and was insufficient as a matter of law. Hence, little in the way of explanation is needed with regard to why Wyche became an official suspect in the Pink Magnolia burglary as of October 2, 2002. That was the same date on which Investigator Moody received the DNA analysis results from FDLE. Without the invalidly obtained saliva swabs, the Lake City police would not have had any basis beyond a legally insufficient hunch to consider the defendant a suspect with regard to the Pink Magnolia burglary. Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (contrasting specific reasonable inferences with an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or `hunch'). Without the improper evidence, there would not have been any inevitable discovery. The very evidence that is properly subject to suppression may not serve as the cornerstone of the State's inevitable-discovery claim. See, e.g., Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548 n. 10, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968) (Any idea that a search can be justified by what it turns up was long ago rejected in our constitutional jurisprudence. `A search prosecuted in violation of the Constitution is not made lawful by what it brings to light....' (quoting Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 29, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520 (1927))); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (substantially similar). Rule 3.220(c)(1) does not modify this result. That rule merely permits the State to require that the defendant provide samples of genetic material [a]fter the filing of the charging document and subject to constitutional limitations [.] (Emphasis supplied.) No information would ever have been filed in this case had it not been for the invalidly obtained saliva swabs, and the above-mentioned constitutional limitations language subjects rule 3.220(c)(1) to this Court's interpretation of the demarcated limits of the Fourth Amendment. Despite the evident merit of Wyche's motion to suppress, the trial judge, with only the most perfunctory explanation, stated that the motion is denied ... I want to be very clear on the record[,][i]f this state had not filed their motiontheir reply to the motion, asking that it be denied on its face, I still would have grantedI would have denied the motion to suppress. In this explanation, the trial judge did not even purport to apply the requisite totality-of-circumstances test, did not list what, if any, voluntariness factors he considered, and did not so much as suggest that he consulted the Fourth District's McCord decision, which was then-binding precedent for the trial court, and which Wyche relied upon and attached to his motion to suppress. During the course of the trial, Wyche lodged at least three specific, contemporaneous objections to the admission of the saliva swabs and DNA evidence, which the trial court similarly overruled. [27] After completion of the trialwhich began and concluded on October 15, 2003the jury convicted Wyche as to all three counts of the information. On November 12, 2003, the trial court imposed a ten-year sentence as to Counts I and III, credited Wyche with 220 days time served, and ordered a five-year term of probation as to Count II. The trial court also adjudicated Wyche a habitual felony offender under section 775.04, Florida Statutes. On appeal, the First District issued a broad opinion with sweeping language, which affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and held that deception is largely if not totally irrelevant for purposes of conducting a voluntariness inquiry. See Wyche, 906 So.2d at 1144 (holding without qualification that [d]eception does not negate consent). In my view, the decision of the First District, which the majority approves and builds upon, is distinguishable and out of step with the majority of federal and Florida decisions concerning the appropriate consideration of police deception within a totality-of-circumstances voluntariness inquiry. The First District's per se, absolutist approach that deception and coercion are mutually exclusive is inconsistent with both the mandate of Schneckloth to consider all of the relevant circumstances and with the recurrent recognition of the United States Supreme Court that coercion may be subtle and psychological in addition to overt and physical. See, e.g., Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960) (noting that coercion can be mental as well as physical (emphasis supplied)); Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 515, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963) (The line between proper and permissible police conduct and techniques and methods offensive to due process is, at best, a difficult one to draw, particularly in cases ... where it is necessary to make fine judgments as to the effect of psychologically coercive pressures and inducements on the mind and will of an accused. (emphasis supplied)).