Florida v. Powell and Miranda

I think most people believe that the Supreme Court decides an issue and never goes back to it. That my not be true, as the only evidence I have is that most people recognize the case Roe v. Wade, but if asked about Planned Parenthood v. Casey, relatively few would have any idea what that's about. That's fine, but generally that is not the reality with most issues, which brings me to this post. Today, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Florida v. Powell where Powell, Florida, and lower courts around the country are waiting for clarification on whether it is sufficient for police to tell suspects that they have a right to speak to a lawyer before questioning and that they may use that right during questioning, or must they specifically inform them that they have a right to counsel during the interrogation itself?

Powell was a felon in possession of a firearm. When arrested and interrogated, he made several incriminating statements, including that the he owned the weapon found on him. These statements were introduced at trial and he was found guilty.

“You have the right to remain silent. If you give up this 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.”

That is the exact text of Tampa's Miranda warning and was used before Powell's interrogation. The defense believed that because the warning did not explicitly state that Powell had the right to an attorney during the interrogation, his statements should not have been eligible to be submitted as evidence.

My Take:
I am sure that there are times when police improperly obtain information from suspects that should not be allowed to be used as evidence in a trial. However, I do not believe that this is one of those times. This man is guilty. He voluntarily admitted that he owned the weapon. He wasn't told that he could consult an attorney during the interrogation explicitly, but he was told explicitly that he could consult a lawyer prior to the interview and he didn't. Finally, as I have put in bold above, that warning does state that a suspect may use the rights at any time.

The actual decision won't be handed down for quite some time in this case, but I'll make sure that I follow up on it.