| Thoughts on the Florida Miranda ruling |
 |
| Written by Lance M. Burris |
|
It was just a matter of time and arrests until Miranda surfaced once again; this time in Tampa, Florida with the arrest and conviction of Kevin Dwayne Powell for illegally possessing a firearm. He was read his Miranda rights and then gave a confession to the police; case closed. But wait, hold on, enter Powell’s attorney, who petitions the Florida Supreme Court through certiorari that her client was not informed he could have an attorney with him during the interrogation to which he had consented by waiving his rights as read to him by the police. The issue in Florida vs Powell is if the police expressly have to advise a suspect that he or she has the right to an attorney during the interrogation. That question goes beyond the 6th Amendment and brings about a lot of nit-picking of the Miranda decision. The 6th holds that a person under arrest has a right to counsel and Miranda provides for that. Powell’s attorney and other lawyers and courts now have the Miranda Warnings in their sights with yet another interpretation of its meanings. Although police departments across the nation have put their twist on how to notify the suspect about the warnings to those arrested and before interrogation whether it be by memorization (not recommended) or by reading from a prepared card, the suspect still gets Miranda. And, consequently, some warnings may not contain the phrase “have an attorney with you during questioning” (recommended). Miranda does not say you have to do that, but perhaps it would be a good idea for police agencies to include it, since this lawyer/court scrutiny has come to light. The Indiana Law Enforcement Academy issues Miranda cards that contain the “lawyer presence” phrase and have done so for many years. Miranda, however, is quite clear and used by the police in an appropriate way, as described by the ruling that came from the case. When the police advise the suspect he/she has the right to counsel before any questioning, and if the person wants an attorney, they get one who can be with them from that point and into interrogation. The Supreme Court needs to refuse to hear this type of referred case by lower courts, and in so doing advise them to stick to the original reasoning for the warnings in the first place and not to scratch the surface looking for a loophole. Lt. Lance M. Burris is a lieutenant and master instructor at the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy. He is a retired chief of detectives and a graduate of the 187th session of the FBI National Academy. Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites          Comments (2)
  written by Kops Korner, March 12, 2010
Perhaps having the phrase “have an attorney with you during questioning” included in the Miranda rights and/or stated again prior to questioning will lead to suspects not being able to get off at a later time. This may lead to more investigative work for detectives in the absence of a confession, but probably the additional evidence recovered over more time put into the investigation will lead to a more guaranteed conviction and proof of guilt.
 written by J. Hormany, March 13, 2010
This lawyer is just trying to make a name for himself.. In these days and ages EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN through papers/internet/tv shows COPS/ etc knows there right to a FREE (Tax payer) attorney. This person broke the law wheather He wants to admit it or hide it.. What he did was wrong.. Go to jail or pay the fine.. In possasion of a fire arm and he should not have been????? Thank you to the Officers catching this guy.. another safe day in the hood.
Write comment
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
