Call us now:
All About Police Lies and Coerced Confession
If you think that the police don’t lie to citizens on a regular basis in criminal cases then this case is the one for you. If you want to learn about police lies and coerced confession look no further than Vera v State (Jason Vera v State 4D2023-1311).
In a recent ruling in the 4th DCA of Florida, Vera v State 4D2023-1311, the appellate court found that the appellant’s confession was not voluntary due to the totality of the circumstances surrounding its elicitation, including misrepresentation and threats from law enforcement. The court emphasized that for a confession to be admissible, it must be made freely and voluntarily. It is the exception where we can get insight into police lies and coerced confession and even more rare when it bothers a court enough to get a case reversed.
Once a case goes to Court, some truth about police practices comes out, and knowing how the police operate is key in understanding our troubling system of justice in the United States and Florida in particular. Luckily, as is seen in this case, an appellate Court ultimately reversed a conviction after tons of tough legal work by criminal defense attorneys.
The charges stemmed from the theft of a pickup truck, with detectives identifying Vera’s truck in surveillance footage near the crime scene, although he was not directly seen in the videos. During questioning, the detectives did not inform Vera that he was free to leave. They read him his Miranda rights before questioning.
A significant part of the interrogation involved the detectives threatening to permanently confiscate Vera’s truck, claiming it was used in the crime. This coercive tactic appeared to pressure him into admitting involvement, as he began cooperating only after the threats were made. The detectives’ flatly lied to Vera, telling him that he was on surveillance driving around the area at 4:00 am. This was false. He is told ‘you cooperate with us, or we take your truck since it was involved with a crime’.
The police admitted to the court that before questioning the defendant they did not have probable cause to arrest him – makes sense since they actually only had a video showing this man’s truck was parked near the crime scene. – and the defendant only made a confession when he was told if he didn’t confess they would take his only vehicle.
The trial court had ruled that while the threat to confiscate the truck was a deceptive tactic, it did not render the confession involuntary, leading to Vera’s plea. However, the appellate court disagreed, concluding that the totality of the circumstances warranted suppression of the confession, which was the sole evidence against Vera. As a result, the appellate court vacated his conviction and sentences.
Referencing Florida case law, the court highlighted that threats, such as the detective’s repeated warnings about the confiscation of the appellant’s truck, could compromise the voluntariness of a confession. The court pointed out that while police can discuss potential consequences of non-cooperation, threatening property seizure in exchange for a confession creates an impermissible quid pro quo.
From Vera: The detectives threatened appellant with the loss of his truck if he did not confess. “‘A confession or inculpatory statement is not freely and voluntarily given if it has been elicited by direct or implied promises,however slight.’” Day v. State, 29 So. 3d 1178, 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)(quoting Telfort v. State, 978 So. 2d 225, 227–28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). The detective threatened confiscation of his truck not just once, but three times. She pointed out that this would be a permanent confiscation and that he could not afford to buy a new truck.
The interrogation lasted about thirty minutes, with the appellant confessing shortly after the threats were made. Unlike previous cases where the coercive comments occurred long before a confession, here the immediate timing suggested that the threats influenced the appellant’s decision to confess. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress, leading to the vacating of the appellant’s conviction and sentence. The police lies and coerced confession backfired in the end, and hopefully everyone can learn from this terrible experience of Mr. Vera’s.
Don’t let this happen to you. Know your rights, and when confronted with police interrogation techniques there is only one response that can bring an ally to your side: “I want an attorney”. Don’t fall victim to police lies and coerced confession.
If you or a loved one believe you’ve been victim to police lies and coerced confession, contact Matt Landsman, today.