Randall T. Deviney v. State of Florida — Polston, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Polston, dissenting, argues that Deviney’s statements were ambiguous and did not constitute a clear invocation of his right to remain silent, so the police’s continued questioning was proper. Accordingly, she would affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and uphold Deviney’s conviction and death sentence. The dissent notes that a reasonable officer would not have understood the statements as a request to cease interrogation. Justice Pariente’s concurring opinion, summarized separately, would reverse the trial court’s denial of a judgment of acquittal on the attempted sexual battery element.