Florida Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Courts of Florida - unoffical reports - Opinions

ROMINGER LEGAL

Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
JANUARY TERM 2005
ABDELHAFID RAHMANI,
Appellant,
v.
Case No. 5D03-3469
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 4, 2005
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Seminole County,
O.H. Eaton, Judge.
Landon P. Miller, Naples, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee.
SHARP, W., J.
After a jury trial, Rahmani, a citizen of Morocco, appeals from a judgment
convicting him of two counts of murder and one count of burglary of a dwelling with an
assault or battery with a firearm.1 He was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences.
We affirm.

1 See 壯 782.04(1)(a), 812.13(1), 812.13(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1996).

Rahmani argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
statements he made to a newspaper reporter, Schouten, and to a private citizen,
Ahmed, after he had been arrested and placed in the back of a police vehicle.2 Jaynes,
a Seminole County major crimes investigator, arrived at the scene shortly after Rahmani
had been detained by Orange County deputies, in Orange County, pursuant to an arrest
warrant issued by the Seminole County Sheriff's Department.
Jaynes testified that Rahmani told him he wanted to tell his story to the reporter,
but he needed a French interpreter to properly express himself. Jaynes observed the
conversation between the reporter and Rahmani, but could not hear what they said. He
testified he had not spoken with the reporter about the conversation with Rahmani
before it took place, and he gave the reporter no instructions about interviewing him or
any questions to ask. He did request that a tape recorder be placed in the police
vehicle, which was done. The reporter also testified he had not spoken with any police
officers before interviewing Rahmani.
After his conversation with the reporter, Rahmani indicated he wanted to speak
with Jaynes further, but he needed a French interpreter. He asked Jaynes to speak to
Ahmed, an employee at Value Rent A Car where the arrest took place. She agreed to
speak with Rahmani after Jaynes asked her to, and she told him she would record the
conversation with a tape recorder provided by Jaynes.
The trial judge correctly found that Schouten and Ahmed were not acting under
the authority of law enforcement and neither attained the status of a police agent.

2 Rahmani made incriminating statements to the reporter and what amounted to
an admission of having committed the murders to the private citizen.
2

Accordingly, the statements were voluntary on Rahmani's part and no Miranda3
warnings had to have been given to make them admissible in court.4
We also find that the affidavit for the search warrant of Armani's vehicle
contained sufficient facts to establish probable cause to search it. Accordingly,
evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant (live shotgun shells and plastic gloves)
was admissible in evidence at Rahmani's trial.
As an additional ground to bolster his argument that the statements made to the
reporter and Ahmed should have been suppressed, Rahmani contends law
enforcement failed to advise the Moroccan Consulate of his arrest and failed to advise
him of his right to have contact with the Moroccan Consulate under the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations. Further, he asserts that after his confinement in jail
and pre-trial, police authorities denied his requests to contact the Moroccan Consulate.
Pursuant to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, law enforcement is required to
advise the Consulates of participating nations, including Morocco, of the arrest and
incarceration of one of their citizens and to inform the citizen of his or her right to have
contact with the Consulate. This is for the purpose of allowing a foreign national's
consular office to visit with him or her in custody or detention, to converse and
correspond with him or her, and to arrange for legal representation.

3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
4 Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487 (1971). See also State v.
Smith, 641 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1994) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in police
vehicle).
3

Rahmani reasons that after his arrest and prior to being interviewed, he should
have been advised of his right to speak to consular officials under the Vienna
Convention. He contends that he should have been advised of these rights prior to or in
conjunction with being given his Miranda rights. Had this been accomplished, he
asserts that he would not have spoken with the reporter or Ahmed and thus he was
prejudiced.
In this context, we reject Rahmani's argument. We do not determine at what
point in time a duty arises under the Treaty to inform a foreign national of his right to
contact the consulate and visa-versa, except to say it does not arise on the point of
arrest and prior to custodial interrogation accompanied by Miranda warnings. If
voluntary statements are made by an arrested foreign national, immediately after an
arrest, compliance with the Treaty is not a relevant consideration in determining whether
consensual statements made to private persons are admissible at trial. See United
States v. Ademaj, 170 F. 3d 58 (1st Cir. 1999). Further, no prejudice in this regard was
established. See Maharaj v. State, 778 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, CJ., and PLEUS, J., concur.
4

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE