559 U.S. 50 (2010)
On August 10, 2004, law enforcement officers in Tampa, Florida, entered an apartment rented by Kevin Dewayne Powell’s girlfriend.1 They were seeking to apprehend Powell in connection with a robbery investigation.2 After spotting Powell coming from a bedroom, the officers searched the room and discovered a loaded nine-millimeter handgun under the bed.3 The officers arrested Powell and transported him to the Tampa Police headquarters.4
Once there, and before asking Powell any questions, the officers read Powell the standard Tampa Police Department Consent and Release Form 310.5 The form stated that Powell had the right to remain silent.6 It also stated that anything he said could be used against him in court.7 The form advised that he had the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of the officers’ questions.8 It further stated that if he could not afford a lawyer one would be appointed without cost and before any questioning.9 Finally, the form noted that he had the right to use any of these rights at any time during the interview.10 Powell signed the form acknowledging that he understood his rights and was willing to talk to the officers.11
Powell then admitted that he owned the handgun found in the apartment.12 He explained that he had purchased and carried the firearm for his protection despite knowing he was prohibited from possessing a gun due to a prior felony conviction.13 Powell was charged in state court with possession of a weapon by a prohibited possessor in violation of Florida law.14
The trial court denied Powell’s motion to suppress his inculpatory statements.15 A jury convicted him of the gun-possession charge.16
On appeal, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal held that the trial court should have suppressed Powell’s statements.17 The Miranda warnings did not adequately inform him of his right to have an attorney present throughout the interrogation.18 The court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court.19 The question asked whether the failure to provide express advice of the right to the presence of counsel during questioning vitiates Miranda warnings that advise of the right to talk to a lawyer before questioning.20 The question also asked about the right to use that right at any time during questioning.21 The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative and affirmed the reversal of Powell’s conviction.22
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the case.23
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the Florida Supreme Court’s decision given its reliance on both Miranda and the Florida Constitution?24
Under Michigan v. Long, when a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law or to be interwoven with federal law, and the adequacy and independence of any possible state-law ground is not clear from the face of its opinion, this Court presumes that federal law controlled the state court’s decision.25
Yes. The Florida Supreme Court trained on what Miranda demands rather than on what Florida law independently requires.26 Although invoking Florida’s Constitution and precedent in addition to this Court’s decisions, the Florida court did not expressly assert that state-law sources gave Powell rights distinct from, or broader than, those delineated in Miranda.27 The state-court opinion consistently trained on what Miranda demands, rather than on what Florida law independently requires.28
This Court has jurisdiction to review the case.29
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Breyer
The Florida Supreme Court concluded that both Miranda and article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution require that a suspect be clearly informed of the right to have a lawyer present during questioning.30 In Stevens' view, the Florida Supreme Court held on an adequate and independent state-law ground that the warnings provided to Powell did not sufficiently inform him of the right to a lawyer’s help under the Florida Constitution.31 This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to review the judgment below, notwithstanding the failure of that court to include some express sentence that would satisfy this Court’s plain-statement rule.32
Whether the Miranda warnings given to Powell, which advised him of the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions and the right to use his rights at any time during the interview, adequately conveyed his right to the presence of counsel during questioning?33
Yes. The warnings given to Powell satisfy this standard.36 The form used by the Tampa police informed Powell that he had the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of the officers’ questions.37 It stated that he could invoke that right at any time during the interview.38
He could consult with a lawyer before deciding whether to answer their questions.39 The form also stated that anything Powell said could be used against him in court.40
The Miranda warnings were adequate.41
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Breyer
The more natural reading of the warning Powell was given is that Powell only had the right to consult with an attorney before the interrogation began.42 The warning contained a temporal limit.43 It failed to mention his right to the presence of counsel in the interrogation room.44
Informing Powell that he could exercise, at any time during the interview, the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions did not reasonably convey the right to talk to a lawyer after answering some questions.45 It did not implicitly inform Powell of his right to have a lawyer with him at all times during interrogation.46 The warning at issue in this case did not reasonably convey to Powell his right to have a lawyer with him during the interrogation.47