ILNews

SCOTUS could clarify Miranda warning rights

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The nation's highest court is considering an appeal that has the potential to affect every arrest and criminal case in the country, including those in Indiana.

Justices heard arguments today in Florida v. Kevin Dewayne Powell, No. 08-1175, a test case from Florida's highest court that could clarify exactly what kind of attorney warning police must give suspects before starting interrogations.

More than 40 years after the Supreme Court of the United States issued the landmark decision of Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), deciding that defendants must be informed of their right to counsel before and during questioning, courts have continued struggling to determine the exact content of the warnings that police must provide to suspects before beginning custodial interrogations. This case tests the sufficiency of Miranda warnings that don't specifically mention a person's right to an attorney during questioning.

In this case, defendant Kevin Dewayne Powell was prosecuted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Police interrogated him post-arrest and he made several incriminating statements, including admitting that he owned the firearm in question. Those statements were introduced at trial over defense counsel's objection that they were improperly obtained in violation of Miranda.

Specifically, police gave Powell a form and obtained his signature before starting the questioning: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up this 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."

Powell was ultimately convicted, but on appeal the state's appellate courts reversed on grounds that the Miranda warnings were constitutionally deficient for not clearly warning Powell of his right to have an attorney present during questioning. The state petitioned for certiorari and the SCOTUS granted it.

In its merit brief, the Florida Attorney General's Office notes a split among the federal Circuits and various state appellate courts about whether warnings "reasonably convey" the required information to criminal defendants. Four Circuits have held that suspects must be expressly informed of the right to have an attorney present during questioning; while four other Circuits - including the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals - have found Miranda warnings sufficient even when those warnings lack explicit statements about the right to counsel during interrogation. That 7th Circuit ruling came in U.S. v. Adams, 484 F.2d 357 (7th Cir. 1973), which held that a suspect had been Mirandized effectively despite the fact that warnings he received didn't inform him of his right to have an attorney present during questioning.

Florida emphasized that these contradictory holdings impose a significant burden on law enforcement officials across the country, and the state is asking the court to clarify exactly what types of warnings Miranda requires.

On the merits, Powell contends that the Florida Supreme Court's decision is fully consistent with Miranda and the subsequent decisions interpreting Miranda. The court has always required Miranda warnings to "clearly inform" suspects of their rights, including their right to have counsel present during any custodial interrogation. Powell argues that numerous federal decisions that have found that warnings communicating only the right to counsel "before questioning" are inadequate and misleading, and that affirming the state decision would not burden law enforcement because most federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies already use Miranda forms that expressly mention the right to counsel during interrogations.

Several organizations have filed amicus briefs in the case, including the U.S. government, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Federal Defenders.

The defense attorney groups argue that if the justices overturn the Florida decision and allow police to use form warnings like used in this Tampa situation, widespread abuse by law enforcement would follow.

"A 'race to the bottom' would inevitably ensue, as States and municipalities test the limits again and again with their form warnings, in an effort to skirt the edges of the Fifth Amendment while still minimizing the presence of lawyers who they believe may interfere with their information-gathering function," the brief says. "The result would be the same sort of abuses that led this Court to adopt Miranda in the first place."

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT