From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Marshall

Supreme Court of Florida
Jun 5, 1997
695 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1997)

Summary

noting that "if the 1991 legislature wanted to eliminate, or limit, [duties required by it], the legislature knew very well how to revise or amend [the statute]"

Summary of this case from Ward v. State

Opinion

No. 88,774

June 5, 1997

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions Third District — Case No. 96-1397 (Monroe County).

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Fleur J. Lobree and Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorneys General, Miami, Florida, for Petitioner.

Laurie D. Hall, Tavernier, Florida, for Respondent.


We review State v. Marshall, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1865 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 14, 1996), in which the court certified direct conflict with State v. Riley, 617 So.2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, sections 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.

In construing section 316.066, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), this Court has stated:

To clarify our decision, we emphasize that the privilege granted under section 316.066 is applicable if no Miranda warnings are given. Further, if a law enforcement officer gives any indication to a defendant that he or she must respond to questions concerning the investigation of an accident, there must be an express statement by the law enforcement official to the defendant that "this is now a criminal investigation," followed immediately by Mirandawarnings, before any statement by the defendant may be admitted.

State v. Norstrom, 613 So.2d 437, 440-41 (Fla. 1993). We cannot say that the 1991 amendments to that statute and section 316.062, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), affect our holding in Norstrom. If the legislature had intended to eliminate the statutory requirement that drivers give accident reports to investigating officers, it would have said so in clearer language.

Accordingly, we approve the decision of the court below, adopt its opinion as our own, and disapprove State v. Riley.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Marshall

Supreme Court of Florida
Jun 5, 1997
695 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1997)

noting that "if the 1991 legislature wanted to eliminate, or limit, [duties required by it], the legislature knew very well how to revise or amend [the statute]"

Summary of this case from Ward v. State
Case details for

State v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, vs. BURT MARSHALL, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jun 5, 1997

Citations

695 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1997)

Citing Cases

State v. Whelan

In such a stop, "persons temporarily detained . . . are not `in custody' for purposes of Miranda." Berkemer…

State v. Bello

The hearing officer determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the suspension, and an order was…