Minimizing Miranda in Florida: Is A Subsequent Confession Inadmissible?

June 30, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, someone who is taken into custody by law enforcement must be read a Miranda warning (their Miranda rights) before they are subject to interrogative questioning. A Miranda warning notifies someone of the following:

• Their right to remain silent
• Their right to an attorney, including the right to have an attorney present during questioning
• The fact that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law

For someone to be interrogated after being taken into custody, they must first knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their Miranda rights and agree to speak with police. But what happens if law enforcement deliberately minimizes the importance of someone’s rights (or the significance of waiving them) to increase the likelihood of obtaining a waiver?

This blog will explore the issue of whether post-Miranda confessions (or other inculpatory statements) are admissible if law enforcement minimizes the importance or significance of a Miranda waiver in order to obtain one from a suspect.

A Miranda waiver must be the product of free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. It must be made with a full awareness of both the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them. If this does not occur, the waiver is considered invalid. State v. Herrera, 201 So.3d 192 (Fla 2d. DCA 2016). 

If an officer minimizes the importance of Miranda warnings in order to obtain a waiver, this can compromise the admissibility of subsequent statements made by the person being interrogated. Courts have consistently held (including the Miranda court itself) that warnings must be properly and thoroughly administered to ensure a suspect has not just full awareness of their rights, but the potential impact of waiving them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966)

A seminal case on this issue in Florida is Ross v. State. Ross was accused of murdering his parents. Law enforcement called Ross in to question him without informing him he was being taken into custody and reading him his Miranda rights. Nevertheless, officers interrogated Ross for hours, eventually eliciting inculpatory statements from him. Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010)

After Ross made various incriminating statements to officers, they finally read him his Miranda rights. In doing so, they minimized and downplayed the significance of a potential waiver – expressing to Ross that he already had made so many statements that would be used against him that waiving his rights and continuing to speak would not change the trajectory of the case.

The trial court ultimately admitted all of Ross’s statements, and he was convicted. But on appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Court cited the officer’s minimization of Ross’s Miranda rights and the fact that these should have been read to him far earlier (given the nature of the questioning and Ross’s perception he was not free to leave).

The Florida Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in Ramirez v. State. Like in Ross, the court found that law enforcement officers made a concerted effort to minimize and downplay the importance of a Miranda waiver by using Ramirez’s pre-Miranda statements against him. As Ramirez had already revealed key details regarding the alleged crime to officers, they signaled to him that invoking his rights would be futile. Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1999).

Note: The State has the burden of proving a Miranda waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Courts are to evaluate this based on the totality of the circumstances. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986)

Ross and Ramirez address the minimization of Miranda’s significance in a similar context to the U.S. Supreme Court’s evaluation of the issue in Seibert. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) Police took Seibert into custody and deliberately elicited incriminatory statements from him without first giving them a Miranda warning. The officers then read Miranda, understanding that the fact he confessed would make it easy to get a second “admissible” (post-Miranda) confession from Seibert.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this tactic unconstitutional. It held that by subjecting a suspect to interrogative questioning before notifying someone of their Miranda rights, law enforcement was deliberately attempting to minimize the likelihood that the suspect would invoke their rights (especially if they had already confessed). Id.

Florida’s courts have recognized that Miranda warning must be complete. In Roberts v. State, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled Miranda warnings which did not include the advisement of the right to an attorney during questioning are constitutionally inadequate. This shows efforts to minimize or omit even a single Miranda right are likely to bar a confession from being admitted.

In sum, officers minimizing or downplaying the significance of someone’s Miranda rights or the consequences of waiving them can have important consequences in a criminal case. Florida’s courts (including the Florida Supreme Court) have been clear that circumventing Miranda and Seibert’s strict rules for obtaining a waiver renders any subsequent inculpatory statements inadmissible.

If a suspect is taken into custody (meaning that based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in their position would not feel free to leave), they must be read Miranda before they are subject to interrogative questioning by police. Otherwise, their statements are likely to be inadmissible in a court of law. 

If someone is concerned that their Miranda waiver was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, it is crucial to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to 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