Florida vs. Powell on August

¶ … Florida vs. Powell

On August 24, 2004, Kevin Powell was arrested on suspicion of illegally owning a firearm and, after allegedly waiving his rights to counsel as required by Miranda v. Arizona, confessed during questioning. Powell was convicted on the basis of that confession. On appeal, Powell's conviction was overturned on the ground that the warnings read to Powell failed to adequately inform him of his right to have an attorney present during questioning. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a suspect must be expressly advised of his or her right to have an attorney present while he or she is being questioned (Chon & Wu, 2009). The U.S. Supreme Court's overruled this decision on February 23, 2010. Not all justices agreed with the ruling and dissented. The interpretation of this case by the U.S. Supreme Court is different to the interpretation of the Florida Supreme Court and therefore it is a technicality of words and their interpretation, and a question of jurisdiction.

Questions presented

Did the Tampa Police Department act in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Miranda v Arizona case from 1966? Has the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Miranda v Arizona case been in alignment with the U.S. Constitution? Did the Florida Supreme Court ruling consider Florida Constitution, U.S. Constitution, and the application of the Miranda rights? Are the so called Miranda rights backed by the U.S. Constitution? Did the U.S. Supreme court have jurisdiction in this case?

Issues

First and foremost, must law enforcement advice a suspect of his/her rights to an attorney before and during questioning, and does the U.S. Supreme Court have jurisdiction over this case?

Facts

The Tampa Police Department did not act in accordance with the Miranda warning before the interrogation of Mr. Powell was conducted. The phrase used by the Tampa Police Department was worded: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions" and "you have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview (State of Florida v. Kevin Dewayne Powell, 2008)."

In 1966 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the historic case of Miranda v. State of Arizona, declaring that whenever a person is taken into police custody, before being questioned, he or she must be told of the Fifth Amendment right not to make any self-incriminating statements (Thomson Reuters, 2009). In the case of Powell v. State of Florida the Florida Supreme Court ruled in the same way, and agrees with the Second District Court of Appeal that such rights need to be clearly translated to the subject interrogated by law enforcement (State of Florida v. Kevin Dewayne Powell, 2008).

On February 23rd, 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court decided to reverse the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court. Not all justices agreed with that ruling and dissented. The interpretation of this case by the U.S. Supreme Court is different to the interpretation of the Florida Supreme Court and therefore it is a technicality of words and their interpretation.

It is questioned whether the U.S. Supreme Court had jurisdiction over that case.

Arguments

In the infamous Miranda v Arizona case the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ". . . The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination" (Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority).

In the case Powel v. Florida the defendant was not properly made aware of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The wording of his Miranda rights by the Tampa Police Department was vague and interpreted differently. The statement, which tell the defendant that he has the right to an attorney before questioning starts, may lead to the assumption, that he cannot have his attorneys advise during interrogation. The differentiation in the wording and the understanding and meaning of this sentence is the reason the Florida Supreme Court ruled in Mr. Powell's favor.

In the case of Miranda v Arizona No. 759 the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that it was unconstitutional to interrogate a suspect without properly addressing their rights to legal counsel before, during and after interrogation. One of the main concerns of the Supreme Court was the absence of other effective measures and procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege (Miranda v Arizona, 1966). In the Bill of Right, the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Fifth Amendment states that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (U.S. Constitution, 1789).

This case has set precedents with the ruling and the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court which was delivered by Chief Justice Warren. It is quoted that the protection of the 5th Amendment right to prevent self-incrimination is the main goal of this Amendment. It was thought out by our forefathers and has its roots in the facts which will prevent interrogation techniques which would present an admission of guilt. These practices were in-human and the founders of this country have tried to prevent them from happening in the United States by including them in our Constitution. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is correct and will protect the individual from self-incrimination.

In regards to the ruling and the application and consideration of the 5th Amendment, Justice Warren explained in the Miranda v Arizona decision: "Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed" (Miranda v Arizona, 1966). The judge further elaborate on this issue to ensure clarity that the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system delineated today. The aim is to assure that the individual's right to choose between silence and speech remains unfettered throughout the interrogation process (Miranda v Arizona, 1966).

The Florida Supreme Court has also considered Article I section 9 of the Florida Constitution which states that "Due process: -- No person shall & #8230;. be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself." This article goes hand in hand with the U.S. Constitution and the 5th Amendment (Florida v Powell, 2010).

After the original case was appealed before the Second District Court of Appeals, the case came before the Florida Supreme Court. The decision of the Court was that based on the action by the Tampa police department. The interrogation of the defendant Powell had been unconstitutional for the same reason as it has been cited in the Miranda v Arizona case.

The Florida Supreme Court held that the Miranda warnings that were given to Powell were deficient under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution (State of Florida v. Kevin Dewayne Powell, 2008). The ruling was based on the facts that the defendant was not properly advise that he had the opportunity to have an attorney present before, and during the interrogation. The Court reasoned that the warning given to Powell was constitutionally flawed because "the right to talk to or consult with an attorney before questioning is not identical to the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning. (State of Florida v. Kevin Dewayne Powell, 2008).

Since the Florida Supreme Court relied on the Miranda v Arizona ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and on the Florida's State Constitutions, article I section 9 which is in wording almost the same as the 5th Amendment, the Court's ruling rested on adequate and independent state ground. The Court also explained that the need for counsel to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege comprehends not merely a right to consult with counsel prior to questioning, but also to have counsel present during any questioning if the defendant so desires (State of Florida v. Kevin Dewayne Powell, 2008).

The U.S. Supreme Court argued that it had jurisdiction over the case. The court reversed the Florida Supreme Court ruling by stating that the wording used by the Tampa Police Department was sufficient because they did adequately convey the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning to the defendant. Furthermore, the Court also justified their ruling with the fact that jurisdiction was giving (see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040 (1983)) since the independence of a state court's state-law judgment is not clear.

Furthermore the Court stated that the Florida Supreme Court treated state and federal law as interchangeable and interwoven and therefore would give jurisdiction to the U.S. Supreme Court based on a ruling made in the Michigan v. Long case.

The most weight was obviously put on the wording used and how it can be interpreted and how it was interpreted. Since there are grammatical differences between "before" and "during," the decision cannot be upheld. It is clear that if the interrogator used the phrase: ".. An attorney will be presented to you before questioning" it is not the same as if it would read: ".. And attorney will be presented to you before and during questioning." This is misleading and can be interpreted as if the defendant would have the right to talk to his attorney only before interrogation starts.

Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer does not agree with the U.S. Supreme Court decision and argues that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling is correct. They argue that the U.S. Supreme Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to review the judgment, notwithstanding the failure of that court to include some express sentence that would satisfy this Court's "plain-statement rule." The adequate-and-independent-state-ground doctrine rests on two cornerstones: respect for the independence of state courts, and avoidance of rendering advisory opinions (Florida v Powell, 2010).

As Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer conclude they point out the difference of opinion, in their judgment, falls short of providing a justification for reviewing this case when the judges of the highest court of the State have decided the warning is insufficiently protective of the rights of the State's citizens. In their view, respect for the independence of state courts, and their authority to set the rules by which their citizens are protected, should result in a dismissal of this petition (Florida v Powell, 2010).

Application of the Law

While it is the Supreme Courts function to interpret the law and to determine if proper due process took place, it is not the its function as a court to advise lower Courts. Therefore the ruling cannot be accepted as state since the independent state Supreme Court did its due diligence and provided a ruling based on state law and used the constitution as a guideline and support for its ruling. Hence, the U.S. Supreme court decision should be overruled since it violated the independence of the State.

The Fifth Amendment clearly states that any person has the right to protect themselves from self-incrimination. This is the main point of discussion in this case. Since the Florida Supreme Court based its decision on the Florida constitution and only considered similar cases as guide to explain their decision, the ruling should not be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The main issue is that a constitutional right was violated for the defendant and the results were incarceration. Since with the proper warning in regards to the presents of an attorney and the clarification of the duration for the questioning in the attorneys presence could have prevented the incarceration, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling should be over ruled.

Conclusion

It is therefore that the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court needs to be overruled and the defendant, Mr. Powell by released from the custody of the State of Florida where he resides for the reasons of inadequate and unconstitutional police interrogation.

The constitution was developed to prevent injustice to the people of the United States. Our forefathers knew what they wanted to change, which was the law in their countries which were unfair and did not protect its citizens. They therefore created a frame work of laws in the anticipation that most of them will be held true even after many decades past.