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

41
Fletcher and Mr. Lee signed ‘Warnings to Suspects’
cards which state, ‘You have the right to the presence
of an attorney.’ This unrestricted warning is distinguished
from the one given in Powell and identical to
language recently approved by this court in State v.
Smith. . . . Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s
[suppression] order.”). The decision below itself discussed
without disagreement Graham v. State, 974
So. 2d 440, 440 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2007), which
likewise upheld generalized warnings. JA 165.
Indeed, although in this case Petitioner argues
that Powell stands for the proposition that the word
“during” must be included in Miranda warnings, e.g.,
Br. 10, in previous cases in Florida, Petitioner
repeatedly has argued that generalized warnings
containing no mention of “during” create no conflict
with the holding in Powell. See, e.g., Jurisdictional
Brief of State of Florida at *4-6, Smith v. State, No.
SC09-739 (Fla. May 18, 2009), 2009 WL 1635223
(arguing that the warning that a suspect has the
“right to the presence of an attorney” does not conflict
with Powell even though the suspect was not
explicitly advised of his right to an attorney during
interrogation).
D. The Decision Below Is Consistent With
Law Enforcement Practice Across the
Country
In the practical day-to-day application of
Miranda, law enforcement agencies in nearly every
jurisdiction in the country have determined that