Opinion ID: 1571939
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rigterink was Confronted with Evidence Strongly Suggesting his Guiltthe Bloody Latent Fingerprints Recovered from the Crime Scene

Text: While not singularly dispositive, this is one of, if not the, weightiest Ramirez factor. See Pitts, 936 So.2d at 1127-28. Similar to Mansfield, in which we held that the defendant was in custody, Rigterink was interrogated by [several] detectives at the police station, he was never told he was free to leave, he was confronted with evidence strongly suggesting his guilt, and he was asked questions that made it readily apparent that the detectives considered him the prime, if not the only, suspect. 758 So.2d at 644. As the Second District observed in Pitts: A reasonable person understands that the police ordinarily will not set free a suspect when there is evidence strongly suggesting that the person is guilty of a serious crime. That does not mean that whenever a suspect is confronted with some incriminating evidence, the suspect is in custody for purposes of Miranda. The significance of this factor turns on the strength of the evidence as understood by a reasonable person in the suspect's position as well as the nature of the offense. If a reasonable person in the suspect's position would understand that the police have probable cause to arrest the suspect for a serious crime such as murder or kidnapping, that circumstance militates strongly toward the conclusion that the suspect is in custody. [However,] [i]f the suspect has been advised that he is not under arrest and is free to leave, the significance of this circumstance, of course, would be diminished. 936 So.2d at 1128 & n. 8 (emphasis supplied) (footnotes and internal division omitted). Other than a murder weapon or DNA evidence tying the killer to the victims, it is difficult to imagine a more incriminating evidentiary item than one's bloody fingerprints being discovered at the scene of the murders. Along with, and in consideration of, all other factors, a reasonable person in Rigterink's position certainly would not have felt free to leave police custody once the detectives disclosed this fingerprint match. Unlike the potentially self-serving accusation[s] of cosuspects or codefendants involved in cases such as Pitts, this fingerprint match was very strong physical, albeit circumstantial, evidence of Rigterink's guilt.