CJ 2500 MOD 3 DB
Shaunwilson74
CJ2500MOD3Notesus_miranda_2010.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2010 Article published in the free PATC E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
Link to Article online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/us_miranda_2010.shtml
http://www.patc.com | http://www.llrmi.com | http://www.fsti.com | http://www.school-training.com | http://www.patctech.com/
Florida v. Powell
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
CLARIFIES MIRANDA
February 2010
©2009 by Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, PATC Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute
Written For and Distributed by P ublic Agency Traini ng Council. For duplication & redistribution of this article, please contact the P ublic Agency Training
Council by phone at 1.800.365.0119.
Article Source: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/us_miranda_2010.shtml
Printable Version: http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/us_miranda_2010.pdf
Stay up to date on these and other legal decisions by reading the weekly article updates available at patc.com
In 1966, the United States Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona
i and held that, prior to
custodial questioning, in order to mitigate the police dominated environment that is likely to overpower
a person’s will, the police must warn a person of their rights under the Fifth Amendment. The four
warnings proscribed by the Court in Miranda were (1) the person has a right to remain silent, (2) that
anything the person says can be used against him in a court of law, (3) that the person has the right
to the presence of an attorney, and (4) that if the person cannot afford an attorney one will be
appointed for him/her prior to any questioning, if (s)he desires. ii
On February 23, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided Florida v. Powell iii and clarified that,
while the four warnings proscribed by Miranda do not vary, the words that the police use to convey
those warnings may vary, and, as such, there is no specific wording that must be followed by police.
The facts of Powell taken from the case are as follows:
On August 10, 2004, law enforcement officers in Tampa, Florida, seeking to apprehend
respondent Kevin Dewayne Powell in connection with a robbery investigation, entered
an apartment rented by Powell's girlfriend. After spotting Powell coming from a
bedroom, the officers searched the room and discovered a loaded nine-millimeter
handgun under the bed.
The officers arrested Powell and transported him to the Tampa Police headquarters.
Once there, and before asking Powell any questions, the officers read Powell the
standard Tampa Police Department Consent and Release Form 310. The form states:
"You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain
silent, anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the
right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2010 Article published in the free PATC E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
Link to Article online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/us_miranda_2010.shtml
http://www.patc.com | http://www.llrmi.com | http://www.fsti.com | http://www.school-training.com | http://www.patctech.com/
cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost
and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights
at any time you want during this interview."
Acknowledging that he had been informed of his rights, that he "understood them," and
that he was "willing to talk" to the officers, Powell signed the form. He then admitted that
he owned the handgun found in the apartment. Powell knew he was prohibited from
possessing a gun because he had previously been convicted of a felony, but said he
had nevertheless purchased and carried the firearm for his protection. iv [internal
citations omitted]
Powell was subsequently charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under Florida
statute. Powell filed a motion to suppress his statement that he owned the gun at issue arguing that
the Miranda warning he received was inadequate. Specifically, Powell argued that the warnings that
stated “you have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions” and “you have
the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview” did not adequately
convey his right to the presence of an attorney during questioning.
The intermediate Florida appellate court agreed with Powell and held that his statement should have
been suppressed. The prosecution appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, and they also agreed
with Powell. The prosecution then appealed to the United States Supreme Court who agreed to hear
the case.
As a preliminary matter the United States Supreme Court had to decide whether they had jurisdiction
to hear the case. The Court has previously held that it will not review a question of federal law if the
state court decided the case based on its interpretation of its own constitution. v Powell asserted that
the Florida Supreme Court decided the case based on the Florida constitution, and, as such, the
United States Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction. In deciding that they did have jurisdiction in
this case, the Supreme Court stated
Nothing in our decision today, we emphasize, trenches on the Florida Supreme Court's
authority to impose, based on the State's Constitution, any additional protections
against coerced confessions it deems appropriate. But because the Florida Supreme
Court's decision does not "indicat[e] clearly and expressly that it is alternatively based
on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent [state] grounds," we have jurisdiction
to decide this case. vi [internal citations omitted]
That being decided, the United States Supreme Court set out to decide the primary issue in this case,
particularly, whether the Miranda warnings provided to Powell by the law enforcement officers
adequately informed Powell of his right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with
him during the interrogation.
As previously stated the warnings provided to Powell were as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2010 Article published in the free PATC E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
Link to Article online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/us_miranda_2010.shtml
http://www.patc.com | http://www.llrmi.com | http://www.fsti.com | http://www.school-training.com | http://www.patctech.com/
"You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain
silent, anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the
right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you
cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost
and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights
at any time you want during this interview."
The underlined portion above are the statements that Powell argues were inadequate to notify him
that he had the right to have a lawyer present with him during the interrogation.
The Supreme Court then examined their precedent regarding whether the police must use specific
wording in giving Miranda warnings. The Court noted from their decision in California v. Prysock vii
that, while the four warnings from Miranda were required, “this Court has never indicated that the
rigidity of Miranda extends to the precise formulation of the warnings given to a criminal defendant.”
Further, in Rhode Island v. Innis viii
, the Court held that safeguards against self-incrimination include
“Miranda warnings …or their equivalent.” Lastly, the Court noted that
In determining whether police officers adequately conveyed the four warnings, we have
said, reviewing courts are not required to examine the works employed as if construing
a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the
warnings reasonably convey to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda. ix
[internal quotations omitted] [emphasis added]
The Court then stated, in Powell, that the Tampa officers did not “entirely omit” any information
required by Miranda. Particularly, the officers told Powell that he had “the right to talk to a lawyer
before answering of [their] questions.” They also told Powell that he had “the right to use any of [his]
rights at any time [he] want[ed] during the interview.” The Court then reasoned
The first statement communicated that Powell could consult with a lawyer before
answering any particular question, and the second statement confirmed that he could
exercise that right while the interrogation was underway. In combination, the two
warnings reasonably conveyed Powell's right to have an attorney present, not only at
the outset of interrogation, but at all times. x
The Court then held
Although the warnings were not the clearest possible formulation of Miranda's
right-to-counsel advisement, they were sufficiently comprehensive and
comprehensible when given a commonsense reading. xi
The majority opinion then concluded by giving an example of a “police best practice.” They stated
that, to avoid possible ambiguity in Miranda warnings, “all…federal law enforcement agencies
explicitly advise…suspects[s] of the full contours of each [Miranda] right, including the right to the
presence of counsel during questioning.” xii
The court then provided, as an example, the warnings
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2010 Article published in the free PATC E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
Link to Article online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/us_miranda_2010.shtml
http://www.patc.com | http://www.llrmi.com | http://www.fsti.com | http://www.school-training.com | http://www.patctech.com/
provided by the FBI, limiting the example to the part of the warnings that were at issue in the Powell
case. The FBI warnings, in relevant part state, “You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice
before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning.” xiii
Thus, while the Court said the FBI warning is “admirably informative,” they declined to require such
specific language as necessary to meet the requirements of Miranda. They again noted that while
Powell was told different words in his warning, those words “communicated the same essential
message.” xiv
Therefore, the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court was reversed, and the warnings provided to
Powell were found to be adequate within the bounds of Miranda.
CITATIONS:
i 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
i i Id. at 479
i i i 559 U.S. ____ (2010)
iv Id.
v Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551 (1940)
vi Powell, 559 U.S. ___ , No. 08-1175 at 17
vi i 453 U.S. 355, 359 (1981)
vi i i 446 U.S. 291, 297 (1980)
i x Powell, 559 U.S. ___, No. 08-1175 at 19 (quoting Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 201 (1989))
x Id. at 21
xi Id. at 24
xii Id. at 25
xi i i Id.
xi v Id.
