Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Florida v. Powell

Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureMiranda warningsCustodial interrogationRight to counselSupreme Court jurisdictionAdequate and independent state groundsMirandaright to counsel

Facts

After arresting Powell and taking him to Tampa Police headquarters, officers read him a standard warning form before questioning. The form stated that he had the right to remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him, that he had the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions, that appointed counsel would be provided before questioning if he could not afford one, and that he could use any of these rights at any time during the interview. Powell signed the form, said he understood his rights, agreed to talk, and admitted he owned a handgun officers had found. He later sought suppression of his statements, arguing the warning failed to convey his right to have counsel present during interrogation.

Issue

Whether a warning telling a suspect he has the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions and the right to use any of his rights at any time during the interview adequately conveys Miranda's requirement that the suspect be informed of the right to have counsel present during interrogation. The Court also considered whether it had jurisdiction despite the Florida Supreme Court's references to the Florida Constitution.

Rule

Miranda requires that a suspect be clearly informed before custodial questioning of the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, but no precise wording is required. The governing inquiry is whether the warnings, read commonsensically and in their totality, reasonably convey the rights required by Miranda. Under Michigan v. Long, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction when a state-court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law or to be interwoven with it and does not clearly and expressly state that it rests on separate, adequate, and independent state grounds.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Police in Phoenix arrested Lena Ortiz on suspicion of burglary and questioned her at headquarters. Before questioning, an officer told her: "You have the right to speak with a lawyer before answering any of our questions, and you may use these rights at any time during this interview." Lena waived and made incriminating statements.

If Lena moves to suppress on the ground that the warning never expressly said counsel could be present during questioning, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that no exact verbal formula is required. The question is whether the warnings, read commonsensically and in their totality, reasonably convey the required rights. Telling a suspect she may speak with a lawyer before answering questions, combined with telling her she may use her rights at any time during the interview, reasonably conveys the right to have counsel available while questioning proceeds.