Major FL Court: “I Need Advice” Was NOT Invocation of Miranda Right to Counsel

April 23, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge’s decision to grant a defendant’s motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements on the grounds that the defendant asking for “advice” was an unequivocal invocation of his right to an attorney.

CASE: State v. Raymond Reese, — So.3d — (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)

Charge(s): First-Degree Murder

Outcome: Trial judge’s decision to grant motion to suppress REVERSED, as the defendant did not invoke his right to an attorney when he asked for “advice.”

Miranda Rights in Florida

In Florida and throughout the U.S., someone must be advised of their Miranda rights before they are subject to CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION by law enforcement. These rights, per the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) decision, include:

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

If someone is read their Miranda rights in Florida, the SMART next move is to exercise them! Tell law enforcement you will be remaining silent and are requesting an attorney. Say ALL of this out loud. If you simply sit there quietly and say nothing, law enforcement has permission to keep questioning you. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

It is frequently believed that law enforcement must read a person their Miranda rights as soon as they are placed in handcuffs. However, this is not the case. For officers to be required to notify a person of their Miranda rights, two conditions must be met:

• The person must be in police CUSTODY
• Law enforcement must intend to subject the person to INTERROGATION

But what do these terms even mean? The first of these, custody, occurs when the following two conditions are satisfied:

• The suspect must have their freedom of movement constrained in a manner consistent with a formal arrest (this includes a formal arrest)
• A reasonable person in the suspect’s position would not feel free to leave (J.G. v. State, 883 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004))

Interrogation is defined as questioning or its “functional equivalent” that is reasonably likely to produce an incriminating response from a suspect. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).

This may include accusing them directly of a particular offense, confronting them with evidence, or telling them that witnesses “saw them” do something illegal. For more on interrogation, click here.

In the event that someone is read their Miranda rights in Florida, they can choose to do either of the following:

• Invoke their rights immediately, requiring that law enforcement cease questioning and provide them an attorney (DO THIS!)
• Waive their rights and agree to speak with law enforcement (e.g. subject themselves to interrogation) without an attorney present

If someone waives their rights prior to the commencement of custodial interrogation, it is critical to know TWO things. The first of these is that they are permitted to invoke their Miranda rights (e.g. right to remain silent/to an attorney) at ANY point during the interrogation even when they initially declined to do so. Washington v. State, 253 So.3d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) 

However, that invocation must be unequivocal and unambiguous once interrogation has started. Saying “I think I may want a lawyer,” for example, is insufficient. Someone must be clear about their intentions. Almeida v. State, 737 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1999)

The second important fact about an attempt to invoke your Miranda rights AFTER waiving them at the start of interrogation is that any such waiver must have been KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY. Pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), this means BOTH of the following must have been true at the time of the defendant’s waiver:

• The defendant understood the nature of their rights (e.g. what they were)
• The defendant understood the potential consequences of giving them up (e.g. that their statements could/would be used against them in court)

Examples of situations where law enforcement acts in a manner that renders a Miranda waiver (and subsequent confession) involuntary 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 fails to read someone their rights at all before custodially interrogating them (Evans v. State, 911 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005))
• 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
• Law enforcement minimizes Miranda (e.g. “This is all just a formality…”)

If a defendant believes their confession was unlawfully obtained (e.g. because they were not read their rights, law enforcement used trickery in getting them to waive their rights, or because they did not understand their Miranda rights), an experienced and aggressive Florida criminal defense attorney can file a MOTION TO SUPPRESS on their behalf. 

If the motion to suppress is granted, any post-Miranda statements (including confessions) made by the defendant are inadmissible in a court of law (e.g. at trial). This means the jury will never hear them – a fact that can change the trajectory of a criminal case.

In one recently decided case involving Miranda rights, Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal (Southeast FL’s highest court) heard an appeal from the State after a judge granted a defendant’s motion to suppress in a first-degree murder case.

The defendant was read his Miranda rights after being taken into custody. During interrogation, the defendant made a statement that he needed some “advice” – because otherwise, things were going to “go south.” Law enforcement did not cease interrogation, and eventually, the defendant made a full confession to the alleged murder.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that his “advice” remark was an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel. The judge GRANTED the motion, preventing the State from introducing any statements at trial that the defendant made to law enforcement after that point.

The State appealed to the 4th DCA, arguing the judge improperly granted the suppression motion because the defendant had already waived his rights – and there was ambiguity about if the term “advice” referred to legal advice from an attorney or advice from another source.

The 4th DCA AGREED with the State, reversing the judge and allowing ALL of the defendant’s statements to be used against him at trial. Let’s take a look at the case, State v. Raymond Reese, — So.3d — (Fla. 4th DCA 2026) – and discuss what it means for those concerned about their Miranda rights.

KEY CASE: State v. Raymond Reese, — So.3d — (Fla. 4th DCA 2026) 

In Reese, the defendant (Reese) was charged with first-degree murder. At the pretrial hearing on his motion to suppress, the following facts were revealed:

• Reese was arrested, put in the back of a patrol vehicle, and read his Miranda rights by one detective
• Another detective recorded the interaction on his cell phone
• Reese agreed to speak with the detectives and gave an “unintelligible” response when he was asked if he knew the victim
• Reese was transported to a nearby police station and questioning continued
• During questioning, Reese acknowledged he called 911 and stated:“Everything’s going bad at once. And this lady put me to the edge, and I’m a good person. But this is on her, man.”
• Reese noted that he’d called 911 previously after shooting a man in Coral Springs
• At some point in the interview, Reese said: “I know, you know, I don’t want this to go south, but I’m telling you, I’m going to need some advice because I’m – I am too f****ng stupid.”
• Detectives continued questioning briefly until the defendant specifically stated that he needed to speak with a lawyer

Reese filed a motion to suppress all of the statements he made between the time of his “I need some advice” comment and the end of the interrogation (when he explicitly asked for a lawyer). 

He contended that his ask for advice was a clear invocation of the right to counsel – so officers should’ve ceased interrogation immediately, per Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).

The judge AGREED and GRANTED the motion, leading the State to appeal to the 4th DCA. On appeal, the State argued the trial judge misapplied the law by finding Reese exercised his right to an attorney when he made the “advice” remark. Specifically, the State claimed:

• “Advice” could have been referring to advice other than legal advice
• Because it was unclear that he was specifically asking for an attorney, and he already had waived his Miranda rights, officers were not required to clarify his intent
• Thus, the statements DID NOT require suppression (and should admissible against Reese at his trial)

The 4th DCA found for the State, REVERSING the trial judge’s order granting Reese’s motion to suppress. The 4th DCA wrote:

“The defendant’s statement that he would “need some advice” did not mention an attorney and was reasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations. Police in Florida need not ask clarifying questions if a defendant who has received proper Miranda warnings makes only an equivocal or ambiguous request to terminate an interrogation after having validly waived his or her Miranda rights…”

“A generalized request for “advice” is not an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel under the objective standard governing Miranda inquiries. … Throughout the interview, any hesitation about talking with the detectives appeared to be more related to not wanting to hear details of the alleged crime, rather than a desire for an attorney. The defendant turned himself into the police, freely admitted to shooting the victim, and volunteered information such as the murder weapon’s location. Later in the interview, the defendant clearly stated that he would like to speak with a lawyer, at which point detectives immediately terminated the interrogation. Because the defendant’s earlier reference to needing “advice” was not an unambiguous request for counsel, the trial court erred in suppressing the statements that followed that ambiguous comment. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting in part the motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.”

Put simply, the 4th DCA agreed that Reese did not unequivocally and unambiguously request an attorney when he asked for “advice.” As a result, his motion to suppress should’ve been entirely denied.

In sum, State v. Raymond Reese, — So.3d — (Fla. 4th DCA 2026) is a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding Miranda rights – and when invocations of the right to remain silent/counsel are unequivocal or unambiguous. Florida’s 4th DCA (Southeast Florida’s highest court) found that:

• Reese’s comment regarding his need for “advice” was not a clear request for an attorney
• Reese could’ve been referring to many different types of advice, such as spiritual counsel or advice from family members
• As a result of the fact that his words were “ambiguous,” officers were not required to end interrogation 
• This meant that Reese’s statements from that point to the time he terminated interrogation were ADMISSIBLE in court against him
• Since the trial judge granted (partially) his motion to suppress, this required REVERSAL, as law enforcement did not err by continuing to interrogate Reese

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of State v. Raymond Reese, — So.3d — (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), as it makes clear when Miranda is (and isn’t) violated by law enforcement once custodial interrogation has begun.

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