## Facts

- In October 2009, Lynda McAdams and her boyfriend, William Andrews, were reported missing and were later determined to have been killed.
- During a welfare check at Lynda’s home, a detective observed apparent blood evidence, latex gloves, and duct tape.
- Michael Lindsey McAdams gave written consent to search Lynda’s home, where officers observed an apparent bullet hole in a bedroom door and recovered a projectile.
- At McAdams’s separate residence, officers (with his father’s consent) observed clothing appearing to have blood and a broken cell phone not belonging to McAdams; officers later executed a search warrant at that residence.
- McAdams voluntarily went to the sheriff’s office for questioning; officers told him he was not under arrest and did not provide Miranda warnings before questioning.
- While McAdams was being questioned in a nonpublic area, an attorney retained by McAdams’s family arrived, sought access to McAdams, and asked officers to stop the interview.
- Officers refused to allow the attorney access and refused to relay any message to McAdams; McAdams was never told the attorney was present.
- Shortly after the attorney left, McAdams confessed to the killings.

## Issues

1. Whether due process under the United States or Florida Constitutions requires police to inform a suspect being questioned in a nonpublic setting that privately retained counsel is present and requesting access.
2. If such notice is required, whether a confession obtained without that notice must be suppressed.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative.
- The Court held police have no constitutional duty to inform a suspect that an attorney retained on the suspect’s behalf is present and seeking access during questioning.
- The Court held that the failure to notify McAdams of the attorney’s presence did not violate due process and, by itself, did not justify suppression of the confession.
- The Court declined to interpret Florida due process to provide broader protection than federal law in this context and rejected a state-law bright-line suppression rule.

## Legal Principles

- Due process does not require law enforcement to notify a suspect of an attorney’s presence when the attorney is retained by a third party and the suspect has not requested counsel.
- A suspect’s constitutional rights during questioning turn on the suspect’s own custody status, warnings (when required), invocation, and the voluntariness and validity of any waiver, not on third-party counsel’s efforts unknown to the suspect.
- Under controlling federal doctrine, events outside the suspect’s knowledge—such as an attorney’s arrival and request to confer—do not, without more, invalidate a waiver or require suppression on due-process grounds.

## Conclusion

Florida law does not require officers to tell a suspect that privately retained counsel is present and seeking access during a nonpublic interrogation, and the failure to provide such notice does not, standing alone, require suppression of the suspect’s confession.


State v. McAdams, 193 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 2016)