Supreme Court Case:
After consuming alcoholic beverages, respondent allegedly drove his car into a crowd of people, killing one and injuring several others. During the investigation phase, the police read respondent his Miranda rights, and respondent signed a waiver form. Respondent then gave a statement that included an admission that he had been drinking that night and that he was traveling at a high rate of speed just before the accident. The police then informed respondent that due to the seriousness of the accident, they were "changing hats" and repeated the questions about his drinking that night. After respondent was convicted, he appealed, arguing that the statements he made during the investigation phase were privileged under Fla. Stat. ch. 316.066 (1988) and, therefore, inadmissible at trial. The appellate court agreed with respondent, acknowledged a conflict with another appellate panel, and certified the question for appellate review. The court quashed the appellate court ruling as it pertained to the privilege claimed by respondent because he was informed of his Miranda rights, which included the right to remain silent, and he expressly waived his right to remain silent.
The court quashed the portion of the appellate court ruling that pertained to the use of respondent's statements made during the investigation phase of the incident because respondent was informed of his constitutional right to remain silent, and he expressly waived that right by signing a waiver form and giving a statement to the police.
State v. Norstrom, 613 So. 2d 437 (1993)
Where a passenger in a vehicle later recanted his statement made at the scene, the 2nd DCA, Florida opined, the accident report privilege set forth in § 316.066(5), Fla. Stat.(2010), did not apply to a witness to an accident, but only to a driver, owner, or occupant of a vehicle because those were the only people compelled to make a report under Florida's statutes. Therefore, the trial court erred as a matter of law in excluding the impeachment testimony of key witnesses.
Sottilaro v. Figueroa, 86 So. 3d 505
Defendant was involved in a motorcycle accident. A state trooper arrived on the scene and began an accident investigation. The trooper then informed defendant that he was commencing a criminal investigation but did not advise defendant of his Miranda rights. In the course of answering the trooper's questions, defendant admitted that he had been drinking. Defendant was then charged with driving under the influence. Defendant was convicted based on testimony of the trooper concerning the admission made during the criminal investigation. The circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, reversed the conviction and stated that defendant's admission should not have been admitted because of the failure to administer the Miranda warning. The prosecution then filed a writ of certiorari, arguing that defendant was not under custodial arrest or otherwise in custody when he made his admission. The court denied the writ, stating that the purpose of Fla. Stat. ch. 316.066was to provide a statutory privilege against U.S. Const. amend. V violations and that when the investigation shifted from accident to criminal, there had to be a clear statement of the right to remain silent.
State v. Marshall, 695 So. 2d 719 (1996)
