Florida v. Powell
Citation and Court
559 U.S. 50 (2010) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Tampa police arrested Kevin Powell and read him Miranda warnings from a standard Tampa Police Department card. The warnings told him he had “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions” and the right to use that right “at any time you want during this interview.” The card did not explicitly state the right to have counsel present during questioning. Powell made incriminating statements and challenged the adequacy of the warnings.
Issue
Do Miranda warnings that do not explicitly state the right to have an attorney present during interrogation adequately convey the Miranda rights?
Holding
Yes; warnings that inform a suspect of the right to consult with a lawyer before questioning and of the right to use that right at any time during the interview adequately convey the right to have counsel present during interrogation.
Rule / Doctrine
Miranda warnings are adequate if they “reasonably convey” to suspects their rights as required by Miranda. No particular formulation is required; warnings are judged by whether they sufficiently inform the suspect, taken as a whole, that counsel may be consulted before and during questioning.
Significance
Florida v. Powell confirms that Miranda warnings do not need to use magic words and that adequacy is assessed holistically. It is the companion to Duckworth v. Eagan, and together they give law enforcement flexibility in wording Miranda warnings while imposing a reasonableness floor.