STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HERVEY LEE OWENS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appealed a trial court order suppressing statements Hervey Owens made to law enforcement. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Miranda warnings given to Owens satisfied constitutional requirements under the standard established in Florida v. Powell.
The Miranda warnings given to Owens satisfy constitutional requirements. The warnings reasonably conveyed Owens' rights as required by Miranda, and reviewing courts are not required to examine the precise words used as if construing a legal document but rather whether the warnings reasonably convey a suspect's rights.
[1] Miranda warnings are satisfied when they reasonably convey to a suspect his rights.
[2] A suspect's right to counsel during interrogation includes the right to have a lawyer present before and during questioning.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In determining whether police officers adequately conveyed the four warnings, we have said, reviewing courts are not required to examine the words employed "as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably 'convey to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda.'"”
Establishes the flexible standard for evaluating Miranda compliance—substance over form.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOwens was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery, one count of lewd or lascivious molestation, and one count of possession of a firear…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals the trial court’s order suppressing statements Appellee, Hervey Owens, made to law enforcement officers. We reverse.
Owens was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery, one count of lewd or lascivious molestation, and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Prior to his interview with law enforcement, Owens was read the following:
You have the right to remain silent; do you understand?
Anything you say may be used against you in court; do you understand?
You have a right to talk to a lawyer before and during questioning; do you understand?
If you cannot afford a lawyer and want one, one will be provided for you before questioning, without charge; do you understand?
Owens responded affirmatively to each question. He also acknowledged that no one had threatened him or promised him anything to induce a confession.
The trial court, relying upon State v. Powell, 998 So.2d 531 (Fla.2008), granted the motion to suppress. During the pen-dency of this appeal, that decision was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. Powell, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1195, — L.Ed.2d - (2010), *353which held that Miranda1 is satisfied when a suspect is informed he has “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [the law enforcement officers’] questions,” and that he can invoke this right “at any time ... during th[e] interview.” The Court explained:
In determining whether police officers adequately conveyed the four warnings, we have said, reviewing courts are not required to examine the words employed “as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably ‘eonve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda.’ ” (citations omitted).
In this case, the Miranda warning given to Owens sufficiently parallels the standard warnings given by the Federal Bureau of Investigation quoted, in pertinent part, and described as “exemplary” in Powell: “You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning.” Id. at 1206.
Since Powell, the Florida Supreme Court specifically rejected the argument that a Miranda warning was deficient because it failed to advise of “the right to appointed counsel both before and during the interrogation.” Miller v. State, 42 So.3d 204 (Fla.2010).
The warnings given Owens satisfy Miranda.
REVERSED.
MONACO, C.J., and PALMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Junior Joseph, 51 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…ld that Miranda is satisfied when a suspect is informed that he has the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of the law enforcement officer’s questions and that he can invoke this right at any time during the interview. See State v. Owens, 41 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); see also Rigterink v. State, 2 So. 3d 221, 254 (Fla.), cert. granted, judgment vacated by Florida v. Rigterink, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1235, 176 L.Ed.2d 175 (2010). [*501] In the present case the trial court found that Mr. Joseph r…
-
State v. Coleman, 65 So. 3d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…State v. Powell, 66 So. 3d 905, 2011 WL 2374612 (Fla. 2011); see also Rigterink v. State, 66 So. 3d 866, 2011 WL 2374188 (Fla.2011). Accordingly, we reverse the order of suppression and remand the cause for further proceedings.2 See State v. Owens, 41 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). REVERSED and REMANDED. GRIFFIN and COHEN, JJ., concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . In arguing for affirmance, Coleman contends the arrest warrant was procured pretex-tually and…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Miller v. State, 42 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 2010)
- Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (U.S. 2010)
- State v. Powell, 998 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2008)