by Shaw, Bransford & Roth, P.C.
March 11, 2010
The Supreme Court recently decided a Miranda question, specifically, 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. The Court held that it does. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion, while Justices Breyer and Stevens dissented. This case involves the arrest of the petitioner, Powell, who before being questioned by Tampa Police, was read their standard Miranda form, which stated: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions" and "[y]ou have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview." Powell then admitted to the police that he owned the handgun that the police found in the search. Powell was charged with possession of a weapon. The trial court denied Powell's motion to suppress his statement. A jury convicted Powell and he appealed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
After addressing a jurisdictional issue, the Supreme Court then determined whether the police officers should have expressly advised Powell to his right to counsel during questioning and whether the failure to provide this express advice violated Miranda v. Arizona.
The Court began its analysis with established precedent, such that Miranda requires that a suspect "be warned prior to any questioning . . . that he has the right to the presence of an attorney." The Court established in Miranda "certain procedural safeguards that require police to advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments before commencing custodial interrogation." The Court has also held that as "an absolute prerequisite to interrogation," that an individual held for questioning "must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation."
The Court noted that while the warnings prescribed by Miranda "are invariable, the Supreme Court has not dictated the words to convey this essential information." To determine whether police warnings were satisfactory given to those in custody, reviewing courts are not required to "examine [them] as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably ‘conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda.'"
The Supreme Court concluded that the warnings that the Tampa police gave Powell satisfied Miranda. The Court opined that the Tampa police communicated that Powell could consult with a lawyer before answering any particular question when they informed Powell that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [their] questions." Further, the following statement by the police that "[y]ou have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview" confirmed that Powell could exercise his right to an attorney while the interrogation was underway. Thus, the combination of the two warnings reasonably conveyed to Powell his right to have an attorney present at all times during the interrogation.
The Court further found the standard warnings used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as "exemplary," which provides in relevant part: "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." Although the officer in this case used different words in the advice Powell received than the words used in the "exemplary" FBI warnings, the Court determined that the officers communicated to Powell the same essential message. The Court declined to declare a precise formulation necessary to meet Miranda's requirements.
Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The case is Powell v. Florida, No. 08-1175, dated February 23, 2010.
« back to previous page
|
