Florida v. Powell , Oral Argument December 7, 2009, U.S. Supreme Court

In Florida v. Powell, the issue was whether the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that a suspect must be expressly advised of his right to counsel during custodial interrogation conflicted with Miranda v. Arizona and decisions of federal and state appellate courts.

On August 10, 2004, police investigators went to the apartment of Kevin Dewayne Powell, where his girlfriend permitted the officers to enter the apartment. The officers searched the bedroom, where it appeared Powell had been. In the bedroom, they found a loaded 9mm handgun. Powell was given the Miranda warnings on the Tampa Police Department Standard Police Form 310 and subsequently arrested and questioned at the Tampa Police headquarters. The written warning on 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.

The detective at Powell's trial testified that Powell agreed to talk and admitted that the handgun belonged to him. Defense counsel objected on the ground that the Miranda warning was inadequate. The court overruled the objection and Powell was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

On appeal, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds that the warnings read to Powell did not comply with Miranda and were deficient under the Fifth Amendment. The Court emphasized that the right to talk to an attorney before questioning was not the same as having a right to having an attorney present during questioning. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision.

The circuit courts have split over this issue. Four circuits have held that a general warning of the right to an attorney is sufficient, while four circuits have held that Miranda requires an express warning of the right to counsel during questioning.

This case will give the Supreme Court an opportunity to refine the procedural guidelines set forth in Miranda by deciding whether a defendant must be adequately informed of his right to counsel during questioning, or whether a general warning of the right to an attorney is sufficient. It will be interesting to see which side the Court comes down on in this issue.