-
-
-
In 1966, the United States Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizonai 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 iiiand 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 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:
"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. Prysockvii 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. Innisviii, 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 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)
ii Id. at 479
iii 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
vii 453 U.S. 355, 359 (1981)
viii 446 U.S. 291, 297 (1980)
ix 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
xiii Id.
xiv Id.
| 
