Florida v. Powell

559 U.S. 50 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Police arrested D and transported him to the Tampa Police headquarters. The officers read Powell the standard Tampa Police Department Consent and Release Form 310. Id., at 1063-1064. 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.' D signed the form. D then admitted that he owned the handgun found in the apartment. D 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. At trial, D contended that the Miranda warnings were deficient because they did not adequately convey his right to the presence of an attorney during questioning. The court denied motions to suppress. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal held that the trial court should have suppressed D's statements. The warnings did not 'adequately inform D of his . . . right to have an attorney present throughout [the] interrogation.' The Court then certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court: 'Does the failure to provide express advice of the right to the presence of counsel during questioning vitiate Miranda warnings which advise of both (A) the right to talk to a lawyer 'before questioning' and (B) the 'right to use' the right to consult a lawyer 'at any time' during questioning?' The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative. The court found that the advice D received was misleading because it suggested that D could 'only consult with an attorney before questioning' and did not convey D's entitlement to counsel's presence throughout the interrogation. The catch-all phrase did not supply the missing warning of the right to have counsel present during police questioning for 'a right that has never been expressed cannot be reiterated.' The Supreme Court granted certiorari.