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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT