Major Florida Court Rules Driver Was Not in Custody for Miranda Purposes, Admits Evidence Found in Vehicle

November 11, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

A top Florida court found that a suspect was not subject to custodial interrogation so as to require a reading of their Miranda rights, allowing the evidence recovered from their vehicle to be used against them in court.

In Florida and throughout the U.S., someone must be read their Miranda rights before they are subject to custodial interrogation by law enforcement. Per Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), these include:

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

Courts in Florida have historically defined custody for Miranda purposes as occurring at the moment that suspect’s “freedom of action” has been restricted in a manner that would make a reasonable person in their position not feel free to leave and end police questioning. State v. Thompson, 193 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). For more on “custody,” click here.

Interrogation is defined as when officers engage in questioning or its functional equivalent that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect. For more on how Florida’s courts determine whether someone was interrogated while in custody (a Miranda warning is required before this occurs), click here.

If someone is notified of their Miranda rights, the smart next move is to exercise them! Make sure to say out loud to the police, then be quiet. If you do not say anything and sit there silently without invoking your rights, law enforcement can keep questioning you until you talk. Say you will be exercising your rights, and nothing else. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

Sometimes, law enforcement will fail to read someone’s Miranda rights when this is required. If police do not notify a suspect of their rights and subject them to custodial interrogation in spite of this, any post-arrest statements (including confessions) made by the suspect are inadmissible in court.

This can have a significant impact on a criminal case, as the State’s inability to use a defendant’s post-arrest statements at trial is likely to improve the odds of a not guilty verdict. Knowing this, an experienced and aggressive Florida defense attorney may file a pretrial motion to suppress a defendant’s post-arrest statements due to a Miranda violation.

There are three types of violations of someone’s Miranda rights that may render a defendant’s post-arrest statements inadmissible in court. These include:

• Someone does not understand their Miranda rights or the potential consequences of waiving them – but agrees to speak with law enforcement (waiver was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary as required by Miranda v. Arizona)
• Law enforcement fails to give someone a full and complete Miranda warning (e.g. omits one or more rights or otherwise fails to convey the defendant’s rights adequately)
• Law enforcement fails to read Miranda at all when this is legally required and subjects someone to custodial interrogation 

The last of these (total failure to read) is not the most common, but does come up in quite a few cases. When Florida courts deal with disputes over whether a Miranda reading was necessary or not, they must ask a pair of important questions:

• Was the suspect subject to custodial interrogation? 
• What does custodial interrogation actually mean (e.g. when is someone subject to it)?

A new case from Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal directly answers both of these questions. Let’s break it down.

KEY CASE: State v. Poke (Fla. 3d. DCA, October 29, 2025)

In Poke, the defendant (Poke) was pulled over for an expired license plate. A police officer approached Poke’s vehicle after pulling him over and notified him of the purpose for the stop. The officer asked Poke if there were any firearms inside his vehicle. Poke replied that his license was suspended and that he had a rifle in a black duffel bag in the back seat.

The officer then asked Poke if he had a concealed carry permit before asking him to exit the car. The officer frisked Poke as he stood outside, and asked him if the weapon belonged to him. Poke told him it did. 

After informing him that the weapon was not properly stored, Poke began to walk towards the officer. The officer placed Poke in handcuffs and told him to stay put.

While Poke was handcuffed, the officer asked him additional questions about the weapon and if Poke “had anything else he should be concerned about.” Poke indicated there was marijuana in the vehicle. The officer conducted a search and did not find marijuana, but found an open bottle of alcohol, resulting in Poke facing charges for:

• Carrying an unlicensed concealed firearm
• Driving with a suspended license
• Possession of an open container of alcohol in the vehicle

Before trial, Poke moved to suppress his post-arrest statements and all of the evidence recovered from inside his vehicle – arguing his Miranda rights were violated. Poke claimed that during the traffic stop, he was subject to custodial interrogation, yet never Mirandized. Since this violated his rights, Poke argued the “fruits” of the officer’s search and interrogation be suppressed.

The trial judge agreed with Poke, ruling that both the evidence taken from the vehicle as well as statements Poke made in response to police questioning were improperly obtained. This gutted the State’s case against Poke, leading the State to appeal.

Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court and reversed the judge’s order, allowing the evidence and Poke’s statements to be used against him at trial. The 3rd DCA ruled that Poke was not subject to custodial interrogation by law enforcement at any point. The court wrote:

“The grant of suppression was error. ‘Miranda warnings apply only to in-custody interrogations,’ which refers to ‘questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.’”

“Here, a law enforcement officer pulled a driver over for an expired license plate, asked questions about his license, and asked if he had any weapons in the vehicle—all reasonable inquiries related in scope to the purpose of the stop and officer safety during the stop. Questioning whether there were any firearms in the vehicle didn’t convert the encounter into an arrest for Miranda purposes.”

The 3rd DCA noted that once Poke had confirmed that his license was suspended and that he had a concealed weapon in the bag of the vehicle, the officer instructing Poke to exit and wait on the bumper of the police cruiser was not a custodial detention. The 3rd DCA held that Poke was essentially subject to a Terry stop, which does not require Miranda warnings: 

“Once Poke responded to the inquiries and confirmed that his license was suspended and that he had a concealed weapon in a duffel on the driver’s side back seat, the sergeant instructed Poke to exit his vehicle and wait on the bumper of the police cruiser. The sergeant then secured the firearm. This was not equivalent to a custodial detention. This is so because ‘the usual traffic stop is more analogous to a so-called ‘Terry stop’ than to a formal arrest.”

Addressing the admissibility of the remaining evidence in the vehicle, the 3rd DCA held that the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment provided a lawful basis to search Poke’s car, as officers had developed probable cause of a crime:

“The sergeant then searched the remainder of the vehicle, discovering the open container. The ‘automobile exception’ to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement provided a basis for the search of the vehicle.”

“Poke fails to identify a basis for suppression of the evidence. This is so even if we agreed that the traffic stop morphed into an arrest at some point after Poke revealed he had a concealed firearm in the vehicle. The search of the vehicle would have been permitted anyway, as a search incident to a lawful arrest, and the same items recovered.”

Because Poke was not custodially interrogated and law enforcement had a separate legal basis other than his statements to search the vehicle, the 3rd DCA held that both Poke’s statements and the evidence against him could be admitted (despite the lack of a Miranda warning).

In sum, State v. Poke (Fla. 3d. DCA, October 29, 2025) is an intriguing contribution to Florida’s case law surrounding Miranda rights and when custodial interrogation occurs (or does not occur). Some of the key takeaways include:

• Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation, not every police encounter (e.g. a traffic stop)
• Routine questioning during traffic stops (such as questions about weapons or contraband) does not automatically create custody
• Handcuffing a suspect does not automatically create custody – courts look at the totality of the circumstances
• When a lawful search would have otherwise taken place (e.g. due to the automobile exception or search incident to arrest), a Miranda violation is insufficient to suppress the evidence recovered from that search

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 drug 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