Smith v. State
The Third DCA affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress a confession where, during the Miranda waiver colloquy, the defendant stated 'I can contact my lawyer' immediately after reading aloud the right to have counsel present. The court applied the Florida Supreme Court's three-part Almeida test to determine whether this was an equivocal invocation requiring clarification or merely a restatement of the right just read.
Key facts
- Smith was arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation; during the Miranda waiver colloquy, Smith stated 'I can contact my lawyer' immediately after the detective read aloud the right to have counsel present.
- Smith was questioned and gave a confession; he later moved to suppress the confession, arguing his statement about contacting a lawyer constituted an invocation of the right to counsel requiring cessation of questioning.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion provides a useful, fact-specific illustration of how Florida courts apply the Almeida three-part framework to ambiguous statements referencing counsel made during Miranda advisements, a recurring issue in… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.