Did the Florida Supreme Court err in denying the respondent's motion to suppress evidence due to an unlawful arrest and Miranda rights violation?

* If IS EYiteHT^ MA'vA^/ siH Jusna ^TeIAT TM tffSFONWTS THE TiM£ DF THF mTTibNtf& UNLAWFUL AMpST 4M ILLfGiAL MiMblDA ' CA LLE D "THE J fl J ‘ "~nn ~'I_ ggW^ RD COuMTr SHEfflfps OWCECgSO) AMRAWA AT iSASTJ "Alai'Ch ^oft (We,s-f V. 51a-fee>f Ffon\h (THE AgspohJbFiVTC, MACAW /StA. Jl/Tj/Ccz ) g7i, Sp. Z</ (nib Y^) 4>/5^ un-h / “YlYdj 2AoY (P^sfJtn/ v. S/3/« of Ja Ctas’P&sPoaa&aTs) } 0g4 So 2d i2.b-l^> /2t; 4/VO jW^ IT WAS vAWEb 8Y TwE of FL0P1 b A j dots /he. -form adv/'s^of rdtfhr Y> hare 2 laAy^-C pr£5j2_n4 during ni/&s~lt6 n»-n “ fig. aa'ce.Q. a>n<d fA(i-rs&. >' /4N& DIt) -SOj MAbn^ysi'g J05T1C6" .' " jjxcaus ’A 4hc Al/<anJa"/ uJar-nfn o r£.cjL< v'&J -fst'le-A -fb in form him -HW hg had ar*<^h-4 -Vo Ylatf-e, an aY^ocng-y (TUts+i'otnW CRob4.r4s V. S+a4«. &£ Flpr/cU RfSPOf/bE'fi/T^ 07^ So. 2d /2.2^>Y) A/ADAPIISip JUSTiCY^ WITH w FACTS of,lBASFt> obi FoStKTSf <'sut SWt oT Flon ’Ja 4THE ^ESP oMDE^TS) v. WiSS f So. 2d H5 .‘ ‘‘4/ix 4r<>( coor4 cfrarft^d 4^ renew-«d me+ion 3^d pn ZcWZr ", AM> AlAbAiYt/SiR JUSTICE, NUMEROUS 0OTpEK CASCS QoT DVERTUPHFC) t T?UE To TU£ -form YhaJ -khz <B<50 ^ro^i'd^ 4o ^4<s a-FfTc^rs^ Theform <54a4€& as -folfcsvS'.