Court Opinion

ID: 9818071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:15:24.521093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:59.713809
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the statement made by the Defendant was an unequivocal request for a lawyer and that he did not reinitiate any conversation with the agent. Under our prior panel rule, Burger King Corp. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 15 F.3d 166, 169 (11th Cir.1994), we find that Cannady v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 752 (11th Cir.1991), controls and requires that we reverse the ruling on the motion to suppress and remand the case for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.