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

17
addressed these separate standards as applied to the
warnings given Powell. JA 169-73. The court concluded
that “[b]oth 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” and that the warnings here were
invalid. JA 174.
Beyond the plain language and analysis of the
opinion, Florida’s principle of primacy confirms that
the decision below was based on independent state
grounds. “When called upon to decide matters of
fundamental rights, Florida’s state courts are bound
under federalist principles to give primacy to our
state Constitution. . . .” Traylor, 596 So. 2d at 962.
Thus, by design, the decision below accorded primacy
to state constitutional grounds even though finding
the warnings here deficient on both state and federal
grounds. JA 174.
Were all this not enough, earlier this year the
Florida Supreme Court confirmed that the decision
below is based on state law grounds. The court followed
Powell and emphasized Traylor’s holding that
“the Self-Incrimination Clause of Article I, Section 9,
Florida Constitution, requires that prior to custodial
interrogation in Florida suspects must be told that
they have . . . the right to consult with a lawyer before
being interrogated and to have the lawyer present
during interrogation.” Rigterink v. State, 2 So. 3d 221,
254 (Fla. 2009) (per curiam) (quoting and adding
emphasis to Traylor, 596 So. 2d at 965-66 & n.13),