Brief of respondent for Florida v. Powell, 08-1175 - Oyez

1
INTRODUCTION
This case presents a narrow question concerning
the sufficiency of a printed Miranda warning form
developed and used by the Tampa Police Department
and read verbatim to Respondent Powell in an
interrogation room at the stationhouse after his
arrest.
Over forty years ago, this Court in Miranda v.
Arizona concluded that “an individual held for interrogation
must be clearly informed that he has the
right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer
with him during interrogation. . . .” 384 U.S. 436, 471
(1966). As the Court has reiterated on numerous
occasions since, “[t]he rule the Court established in
Miranda is clear. In order to be able to use statements
obtained during custodial interrogation of the
accused, the State must warn the accused prior to
such questioning . . . of his right to have counsel,
retained or appointed, present during interrogation.”
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 717 (1979). Just last
Term, this Court emphasized that Miranda rights
read to suspects “include the right to have counsel
present during interrogation.” Montejo v. Louisiana,
129 S. Ct. 2079, 2085 (2009). The Florida Constitution
independently “requires that prior to custodial
interrogation in Florida suspects must be told” of
certain rights, including their “right to consult with a
lawyer before being interrogated and to have the
lawyer present during interrogation.” Traylor v. State,
596 So. 2d 957, 966 & n.13 (Fla. 1992).