WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday seemed headed toward telling police they must explicitly advise criminal suspects that their lawyer can be present during any interrogation.
The arguments in front of the justices were the latest over how explicit the Miranda warning rights have to be, as justices debated whether the warnings police gave Kevin Dwayne Powell made clear to him that he could have a lawyer present while being interrogated by police.
Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon “off the street” for $150 for his protection. Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the statements “You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.”
The Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds the Tampa police didn’t adequately convey to Powell that he was allowed to have a lawyer with him during questioning.
Different courts have come down on different sides on what exactly should be said, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
“We’ve got a split of circuit courts and state courts on whether this reasonably conveys or not. Shouldn’t that be enough of an ambiguity for us to conclude it can’t reasonably convey, if there’s this many courts holding that it doesn’t?” she said.
Powell’s lawyer, Deborah K. Brueckheimer, said the warning Powell was given from Tampa police gave him the impression that “once questioning starts, that he has no right to consult with a lawyer anymore, and it certainly doesn’t tell him that he has the right to the presence of an attorney with him in an interrogation room, where the coercion takes on a highly new meaning.”
Miranda rights have been litigated since they first came into being in 1966.
This is the third Miranda case the court has heard this year.
The justices heard arguments earlier over whether officers can interrogate a suspect who said he understood his rights but didn’t invoke them, and whether a request for a lawyer during interrogation can expire after a lengthy period of time.
Decisions in all three cases are expected next year.
Also Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a Christian student group’s right to religious liberty and the freedom of association can trump a university’s ban on discrimination against gays and lesbians.
The case could set new rules for campus groups that receive funding through fees paid by students.
Finally, the justices tangled Monday over whether an accounting-oversight board — the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, sometimes called “peek-a-boo” — established by Congress to make sure there were “no more Enrons” violates the president’s executive power.
The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post contributed to this report.
