Court approves Florida's Miranda warning (Feb. 23, 2010)

The Supreme Court backed Florida's version of the right-to-counsel warning that is required by Miranda v. Arizona, holding that police officers do not have to explicitly warn criminal suspects that their lawyer can be present during an interrogation.

In 2004, Florida police arrested Kevin Dwayne Powell and transported him to police headquarters where he was questioned after being advised of his Miranda rights.

At trial, during the direct examination of the investigating detective, Powell's attorney objected to testimony concerning his statements to police on the ground that the Miranda warning given was invalid. Subsequent testimony revealed that the standard police form used during the interrogation of respondent did not explicitly indicate he had the right to have an attorney present during questioning. The warning read as follows:

"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 trial court ruled that the warning was adequate.

On appeal, the Second U.S. District Court reversed respondent’s conviction, holding that the Miranda warnings were deficient under the Fifth Amendment because respondent was not "clearly informed" of his right to have a lawyer with him during questioning.

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Powell was not clearly informed of his right to have counsel present during questioning.

According to the Florida Supreme Court, the standard police form used during the interrogation failed Miranda because it did not expressly state that Powell had the right to have counsel present during the interrogation, which is "indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege."

Consequently, according to the Florida Court, because both Miranda and the Florida Constitution require that a "suspect be clearly informed of the right to have a lawyer present during questioning," the Second District’s decision was affirmed.

On Feb. 23, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Florida court in a 7-2 opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"The question presented in this case is whether advice that a suspect has 'the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [the law enforcement officers’] questions,' and that he can invoke this right 'at any time . . . during th[e] interview,' satisfies Miranda. We hold that it does," Ginsburg wrote for the majority.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that "the Florida Supreme Court has the better view on the merits."

Question presented: Must a suspect be expressly advised to his right to counsel during questioning and if so, does the failure to provide this express advice vitiate Miranda v. Arizona?