FLORIDA V. POWELL
559 U.S. 50 (2010)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Florida (P) appealed a judgment overturning a criminal conviction in
that the advice Powell (D) was given for his right to counsel was misleading.
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.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment