Major FL Court Finds Miranda Rights Violation After Police ‘Bait’ Suspect Into Waiving Rights

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that a police officer telling a suspect that witnesses placed him at a crime scene was a deliberate tactic to get the suspect to waive his right to remain silent after the suspect had already invoked it – making his subsequent confession inadmissible.

In Florida and throughout the United States, Miranda rights are a critical constitutional protection for suspects in a criminal investigation. Per the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), your Miranda rights include:

• The right to remain silent
• The fact that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
• The right to an attorney, including to have one present during questioning
• The fact that if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you

Someone does not have to be read their Miranda rights every time they come into contact with law enforcement. A Miranda reading is only required before someone is subject to custodial interrogation by law enforcement. Moore v. State, 798 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)

For Miranda purposes, custody occurs when a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would not feel free to leave, and their freedom of movement is being restricted consistent with a formal arrest. To learn more about custody, click here.

Interrogation for Miranda purposes occurs when law enforcement engages in questioning “or its functional equivalent” that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).  For more on interrogation, click here.

If someone is read their Miranda rights, the SMART next move is to exercise them! You have the right to remain silent – but sometimes, people do not have the ability to do so. This can result in someone getting “hooked,” as any statements a suspect makes after validly waiving their rights are admissible against them in court (e.g. at trial).

When someone exercises their rights, it is CRITICAL to tell officers out loud that you will be remaining silent and are requesting an attorney. If you simply sit there quietly and do not make clear you are invoking your Miranda rights, the police may continue questioning you. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

In the event that someone waives their Miranda rights and agrees to speak with police, this must be done knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. In essence, this means that a suspect must both understand their Miranda rights and the potential consequences of waiving them and speaking to law enforcement. To learn more on when a Miranda waiver is considered voluntary, click here.

There are various reasons why someone’s Miranda waiver may be determined by a Florida court to have not been knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Examples may include:

• Law enforcement does not read someone their full Miranda rights (e.g. omits one or more rights when notifying a suspect of them, such as not disclosing the right to an attorney)
• Law enforcement minimizes Miranda (e.g. “This is just a formality…”)
• Law enforcement reads someone their rights in a language that is not their own (e.g. reads a clear Spanish-speaker their rights in English)
• Law enforcement uses threats, coercion, or trickery to get someone to waive their rights – even once they have chosen to exercise them

If someone’s Miranda waiver is found to have not been knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the proper remedy is suppressing the suspect’s post-arrest statements (e.g. confessions) to police. If these statements are rendered inadmissible in a court of law, this can fundamentally change the trajectory of a criminal case. For more, click here.

Sometimes, a person will decide to invoke their Miranda rights – telling law enforcement that they wish to remain silent and/or are requesting a lawyer. The Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts are clear that if and when this occurs, law enforcement must immediately disengage from the suspect (e.g. not say anything else to them about the case that could get them to talk).

So, what happens if law enforcement violates this rule, elicits a confession from a defendant as a result, AND that confession is later used against a defendant at trial (resulting in a guilty verdict). Must a guilty finding be reversed because officers violated the defendant’s Miranda rights?

The answer is YES – as Florida’s courts have made clear. Let’s take a look at a case where this occurred – State v. Brown, 592 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1991) – and discuss what it means for your Miranda rights in Florida.

KEY CASE: State v. Brown, 592 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1991)

In Brown, the defendant (Brown) was charged with burglary, theft, and criminal mischief. Before trial, he moved to suppress his confession to the offenses – arguing this was unlawfully obtained (e.g. in violation of his Miranda rights). The trial judge granted Brown’s motion, suppressing the confession and gutting the State’s case. The State appealed to the 3rd DCA. 

When Brown was arrested, he was read his Miranda rights and immediately invoked them. In spite of telling law enforcement he would be remaining silent and was requesting an attorney, an interrogating officer immediately told Brown all of the following:

• He had been listed as a suspect by the victim
• Three witnesses placed him at the scene of the crime
• His girlfriend had implicated him in the burglary
• He had been seen in possession of an item stolen in the burglary

After confronting Brown with these details – seconds after Brown invoked his rights – the officer handcuffed Brown to a bench in the interrogation room. About an hour and a half later, when he was moved to the “booking room,” Brown expressed to law enforcement that he had changed his mind and wished to speak with them about the crimes.

Brown was read his Miranda rights again, and signed a form waiving them. Brown then signed a prepared statement of confession to the offenses. 

Before trial, the State indicated it wished to use Brown’s confession as evidence. Brown moved to suppress the confession, arguing to the trial judge that his Miranda rights were violated by the interrogating officer when he was confronted with the alleged details of his crime(s) AFTER he invoked his Miranda rights. The trial judge agreed and suppressed the confession.

On appeal to Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal (Miami area), the State argued that Brown’s confession was erroneously suppressed. However, the 3rd DCA disagreed with the State – and affirmed the trial judge’s ruling (making Brown’s confession inadmissible at trial).

Finding that Brown’s Miranda rights were violated and that his confession was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the 3rd DCA wrote:

“In a written order suppressing the confession, the court found: In the case sub judice, it was incumbent on the detective to cease any conversations with the defendant which the detective should have known could lead to responses from the defendant regarding the case for which he had been arrested. The statement of the defendant that, “I have to tell you the truth,” came only after continued information had been repeated to Brown by Potts. The amount of time that lapsed between the end of these statements by Potts to Brown did not serve to render Brown’s waiver and statements to have been freely and voluntarily made. The second signed waiver was ineffective in waiving the defendant’s right to counsel.”

“This is not the case where, in the context of a brief conversation between officers, the defendant was moved to make a self-incriminating response which the officers had no reason to expect. In this case the officer’s words and conduct were protracted and evocative and, as the trial court found, should reasonably have been known by the officer as likely to elicit an incriminating response. … A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress has a presumption of correctness and, where the record supports its ruling, it is impermissible for the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder.”

In essence, the 3rd DCA found support for the trial judge’s ruling that Brown’s confession was improperly obtained by law enforcement in violation of his Miranda rights. Thus, it could not be used against him at trial.

In sum, State v. Brown, 592 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1991) represents a significant contribution to Florida’s corpus of case law on the issue of Miranda rights. The 3rd DCA found that:

• Brown unequivocally invoked his rights to remain silent and his right to an attorney
• This required law enforcement to immediately disengage (e.g. not subject him to any further interrogation)
• Instead, the interrogating officer disclosed various “details” to Brown about the case that likely caused him to waive his rights and confess
• This confession was “fruit of the poisonous tree,” because the officer violated Brown’s Miranda rights
• Because the judge correctly ruled Brown’s confession inadmissible at trial, his decision was affirmed

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of State v. Brown, 592 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1991), as it makes clear an officer’s failure to immediately disengage from a suspect when they exercise their Miranda rights is likely to result in the suppression of that suspect’s subsequent confession.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case involving a Miranda waiver that was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting criminal charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share