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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

22 1982 state constitutional amendment requiring courts to construe Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution “ ‘in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court’ ” and to “provide no greater protection than those interpretations.” Bernie v. State, 524 So. 2d 988, 990-91 (Fla. 1988) (quoting and adding emphasis to Fla. Const. art. I, § 12). This case is also unlike Evans, where this Court rejected an argument that the decision below rested on independent and adequate state grounds, in particular a state “good-faith statute.” 514 U.S. at 6- 7, 9. The decision below in Evans reflected that the good-faith statute was of no import because the case was “not about the motives of the police” and “[t]he fact that the arresting officer acted in good faith [was] irrelevant.” State v. Evans, 866 P.2d 869, 871 (Ariz. 1994). And this case is unlike Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940-41 (1996), and New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 109-10 (1986), because, there, the state high courts did not make clear that the applicable state constitutional protections were independent of federal requirements. 5 By contrast, the Florida 5 This case is also unlike Kansas v. Marsh, where the decision below was based on a prior state court decision that, “itself, rested on federal law.” 548 U.S. 163, 169 (2006); see also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 571 (1988) (“Like the court below it, the [state high court] rested its ruling on state precedents interpreting the Fourth Amendment.”).
23 Supreme Court in this case explicitly based its holding on the independent state constitutional proscription against compelled self-incrimination set forth in Traylor. While the Florida Supreme Court’s plain statement of the Florida constitutional ground here far exceeds the indicia in Labron and Class, on remand the courts in those cases confirmed that their original decisions were, indeed, premised on state law grounds and did not disturb the outcome of the original decisions for the defendants. Commonwealth v. Labron, 690 A.2d 228, 228 (Pa. 1997) (reaffirming original decision and “explicitly not[ing] that it was, in fact, decided upon independent state grounds, i.e., Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution”); People v. Class, 494 N.E.2d 444, 445 (N.Y. 1986) (reaffirming original decision and stating that the court had “initially and expressly relied on the State Constitution”). Even if this Court were to reach the merits and reverse, the Florida Supreme Court on remand could not ignore its holding that the warnings given Powell were insufficient under the Florida Constitution and Traylor. In all events, the outcome of this case will be reversal of Powell’s conviction, whether under state or federal law (or both). To avoid rendering an impermissible advisory opinion, this Court should dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
Page 1 and 2: No. 08-1175 =======================
Page 3 and 4: ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS
Page 5 and 6: iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES
Page 7 and 8: vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
Page 9 and 10: viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continu
Page 11 and 12: 1 INTRODUCTION This case presents a
Page 13 and 14: 3 protections. The Florida Supreme
Page 15 and 16: 5 The warning form did not state th
Page 17 and 18: 7 The jury found Powell guilty of p
Page 19 and 20: 9 The Florida Supreme Court conclud
Page 21 and 22: 11 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I. This Cour
Page 23 and 24: 13 In line with this longstanding j
Page 25 and 26: 15 ARGUMENT I. THE WRIT OF CERTIORA
Page 27 and 28: 17 addressed these separate standar
Page 29 and 30: 19 the Florida Constitution more br
Page 31: 21 here warrant dismissal. What can
Page 35 and 36: 25 The basis for requiring law enfo
Page 37 and 38: 27 include the right to have counse
Page 39 and 40: 29 Frankson, 83 F.3d 79, 82 (4th Ci
Page 41 and 42: 31 is in the ambiguity of the warni
Page 43 and 44: 33 respecting the denial of the pet
Page 45 and 46: 35 the Fifth Circuit concluded that
Page 47 and 48: 37 For its part, the Solicitor Gene
Page 49 and 50: 39 [T]o advise a suspect that he ha
Page 51 and 52: 41 Fletcher and Mr. Lee signed ‘W
Page 53 and 54: 43 Of the over 900 forms in the stu
Page 55 and 56: 45 the right to counsel “before
Page 57 and 58: 47 Last, Petitioner ultimately retr
Page 59 and 60: 49 Beyond that, Petitioner’s spec
Page 61 and 62: 51 for the United States at *37-38,
Page 63 and 64: 53 decision that Tampa again aligne

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?