Everyone knows about Miranda warnings because, in the movies, the officer says:
“You have the right to remain silent…”
After an arrest for a criminal offense in Florida, many people are surprised that the arresting officer did not read them Miranda warnings. So if Miranda wasn’t read, what happens?
Your attorney could file a motion to suppress any custodian statements taken during interrogation if Miranda wasn’t read.
What should you do when you are questioned by a law enforcement officer in Florida who suspects you may be involved with criminal activity?
Under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, you are entitled to invoke your right to remain silent. Under the Sixth Amendment, you have the right to have an attorney present before you answer any questions.
To invoke your right to remain silent, you say, “I want to invoke my right to remain silent. I want to speak with an attorney first. I am not going to answer any questions.”
Once you invoke your right to remain silent, if the officer continues questioning you, you know that the officer is violating your constitutional rights. Continue to remain silent.
Some say, “Well, doesn’t that make me look guilty?” No, because the fact you invoke your Miranda rights can not be used against you at trial.
Attorney for Miranda Violations in Florida
If you have questions about how the Miranda decision might affect your case in the Tampa Bay area, including Hillsborough County, Polk County, Pinellas County, Pasco County, or Polk County, then contact a criminal defense attorney at Sammis Law Firm.
The criminal defense attorneys at Sammis Law Firm are experienced in fighting to exclude statements taken in violation of your Miranda rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Contact us for a free consultation. Our main office is located in downtown Tampa in Hillsborough County, FL. We also have a second office in New Port Richey in Pasco County, FL.
The Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination
This article is intended to give you some general information about Miranda warnings and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment privilege of the United States Constitution provides:
“No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Supreme Court of Florida found that “[w]ithout the protections flowing from adequate warnings and the rights of counsel, all the careful safeguards erected around the giving of testimony, whether by an accused or any other witness, would become empty formalities in a procedure where the most compelling possible evidence of guilt, a confession, would have already been obtained at the unsupervised pleasure of the police.” Id. at 465.
Additionally, the Miranda decision provides that during “custodial interrogation,” no statements taken from the defendant may be admitted against the defendant unless the defendant was advised of his Miranda warnings and then made a voluntary, intelligent, and knowingly waiver of those rights.
Motions to Suppress Statements Taken in Violation of Miranda
If the defendant was “in custody” and subjected to “interrogation,” then the defense attorney can file and litigate a motion to suppress those statements so that the prosecutor can not use the incriminating statements during the trial.
The issues for the motion to suppress usually include the following:
- Whether the defendant was “in custody”?
- Were the statements in response to “interrogation?”
- If the defendant was in custody and interrogated, then were the Miranda warnings properly given?
- If so, did the defendant make a waiver that was intelligent, voluntary, and knowingly given?
- If the waiver of Miranda warnings was valid, did the defendant do anything to later attempt to stop the questioning by indicating that he wanted to stop the questioning?
- Even if the defendant first invokes the right to counsel or the right to an attorney, are there any events that would allow him to be questioned by law enforcement again?
If you were read your Miranda warning and then asked to submit to a chemical test, your decision to remain silent might be deemed a “refusal” by the arresting officer.
In these cases, your criminal defense attorney can file a motion to suppress any mention of the alleged refusal under the “confusion doctrine.”
Who Has the Burden at the Hearing on Miranda Violations?
At the motion to suppress hearing, the courts in Florida have generally indicated specific rules about who has the burden of proof at the hearing:
- The defendant must first establish that he was in custody and made statements in response to interrogation.
- The prosecutor then has the burden to show that the custody was lawful.
- The prosecutor also has the burden to show that before the defendant’s statements were taken after an adequate Miranda warning was given, the defendant gave a valid waiver of those rights.
- In those cases in which the prosecutor has established that valid Miranda warnings were given and the defendant waived those rights, then the defendant has the burden of
showing that he asserted the right to counsel or remain silent.
- The prosecutor then has the burden to show that the defendant again initiated a new conversation with the law enforcement officers about the case and that the police gave valid Miranda warnings and obtained a valid waiver of those rights.
Why Officers Claim that “Spontaneous Statements” Were Made
Officers sometimes classify a statement as spontaneous when the circumstances don’t support that characterization. A spontaneous statement is not made in response to police interrogation but is volunteered by the subject.
A true spontaneous statement can be used against the subject without the benefit of Miranda warnings. If the officer is questioning the defendant regarding a specific act and he blurts out an admission regarding a different act, there is an argument to be made that this is not a spontaneous statement as it was made pursuant to police questioning.
While officers do not need to issue Miranda Warnings to ask a subject about biographical information, if that officer goes into any other area of questioning, statements made in response to such questioning might not be viewed as spontaneous. Also, the prosecutor might want to use a spontaneous statement if insufficient evidence exists to prove a particular charge.
Your Self-Serving Statements are Inadmissible
Miranda requires a warning that your statements can be used against you. Does that mean that your self-serving statements can be used to help your case at trial?
No, because the state might file a motion in limine to exclude any attempts to elicit statements helpful to your case as inadmissible hearsay.
If you have questions about the Miranda warnings and how they might affect the prosecution of your case in the Tampa Bay area, including Hillsborough County, Manatee County, Pinellas County, Polk County, or Pasco County, then contact an experienced criminal defense attorney at Sammis Law Firm.
This article was last updated on Tuesday, March 28, 2023.