North FL’s Highest Court: Officer Saying “It Can’t Hurt You To Talk” Violates Miranda Rights

January 14, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that an officer telling a defendant that it “couldn’t hurt him” to waive his right to remain silent and speak with police made the defendant’s waiver of his rights involuntary – requiring reversal of the defendant’s conviction.

In Florida and throughout the U.S., Miranda rights are a key constitutional protection designed to prevent police from extracting involuntary confessions from suspects in violation of their rights.

Per the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966) ruling, these rights 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 have an attorney, including during police questioning
• The fact that if someone cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them

Though it is a common belief that someone must be read their Miranda rights the moment they are detained or arrested by law enforcement, this is not true. Someone must be notified of their Miranda rights some time before custodial interrogation – but if this does not occur, Miranda does not have to be read.

For Miranda purposes, custody occurs when a suspect’s freedom of movement is restricted in a manner consistent with an arrest, and a reasonable person in their position would not feel free to leave. Interrogation occurs when officers engage in questioning or its “functional equivalent” that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect.

Note: To learn more about what qualifies as custody under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966), click here. For more on interrogation, click here.

If someone is read their Miranda rights, the smart next move is to exercise them. Tell the police you will be remaining silent and are requesting an attorney. If you simply sit there quietly and say nothing, law enforcement can legally keep questioning you to try to get you to “break.” Exercise your rights out loud, then be quiet!

When a person is notified of their Miranda rights, they are at a “fork in the road,” requiring them to choose one of two options:

• Exercise their right to remain silent/request an attorney
• Waive their rights and agree to speak with law enforcement without an attorney present

The latter of these (speaking to police without an attorney) is generally a big mistake. This is because law enforcement is specifically trained in the art of extracting incriminating statements from people, including in cases where someone may not believe they’ve done anything wrong. 

If someone does waive their Miranda rights (e.g. to remain silent/have an attorney present) and speak with police, this must be done knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. This means they must both understand the nature of their rights and the potential consequences of giving them up (Miranda).

In the event that someone’s waiver of their rights is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, any post-arrest statements they make to law enforcement (including confessions) are admissible in a court of law (e.g. at their trial). To learn more about how Florida courts determine whether a Miranda waiver was legally valid (e.g. knowing, intelligent, voluntary), click here.

Courts have been clear that if police officers use “coaxing, cajoling, or trickery” to get someone to waive their Miranda rights, this invalidates a Miranda waiver. Because such tactics make a waiver of a suspect’s Miranda rights involuntary, any incriminating statements they make during the ensuing interrogation cannot be used against them at trial.

Examples of “coaxing, cajoling, or trickery” that are likely to invalidate a Miranda waiver in Florida (due to misleading the suspect as to the nature of their rights/the potential consequences of giving them up) include:

• An officer telling a suspect that they’ll be in “big trouble” if they don’t sign a Miranda waiver
• An officer telling a suspect that Miranda rights are“just a formality” and “don’t really mean anything” (Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010))
• An officer claiming that it “can’t hurt” the suspect to waive their right to remain silent and speak with police about “what happened”

The last of these occurred in a major case heard by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal, North Florida’s highest court. After a defendant’s incriminating statements were wrongly used against him at trial, the 1st DCA reversed the defendant’s conviction – finding the officer’s “trickery” invalidated the defendant’s Miranda waiver.

Let’s take a look at that seminal case – Pierce v. State, 221 So.3d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) – and what it means for your Miranda rights in Florida.

KEY CASE: Pierce v. State, 221 So.3d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)

In Pierce, the defendant (Pierce) was accused of attempted second-degree murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle. He was convicted on both charges.

After an incident that allegedly involved Pierce shooting into a car after a drug deal gone wrong, Pierce was interrogated by law enforcement. At the start of questioning, Pierce was advised of his Miranda rights both orally (by the interrogating officer) and in writing.

As Pierce was reviewing the written Miranda rights form, he appeared skeptical about the idea of speaking to law enforcement without first knowing what he was being “charged for.” This led to the interrogating officer saying the following to Pierce:

“Okay, so it can’t hurt you to talk with me but it’s up to you. If you don’t want to say anything now, that’s fine. We’ll just do this and then just go with what happens, but if you want to talk about something [sic]. And I can explain to you some things; we can do it that way. I thought the whole reason why you wanted to talk to me is so we could talk and this [sic].”

A moment later, Pierce signed the Miranda waiver and interrogation began. During questioning, Pierce confessed to shooting into the vehicle.

Before trial, Pierce moved to suppress his post-Miranda statements (e.g. prevent them from being used against him in court). Pierce argued the officer’s “trickery” (telling him it “can’t hurt him to talk”) misled him into believing that his statements would not be used against him. Because this misrepresentation led to his confession, Pierce argued it was illegally obtained.

The trial judge denied Pierce’s motion to suppress, finding his Miranda waiver and subsequent statements were voluntary. At Pierce’s trial, his interrogation was played for the jury – and he was convicted on all counts.

On appeal to the 1st DCA (represented by Tallahassee appellate attorney Michael Ufferman), Pierce reiterated his argument that the officer’s “misleading” statements constituted the kind of trickery expressly prohibited by Miranda. Because Pierce’s statements were a key part of the State’s case against him, Pierce argued that his convictions required reversal.

The 1st DCA agreed with Pierce – reversing his convictions and remanding the matter to the lower court for a new trial. The 1st DCA wrote:

“The highlighted portions of the interrogation quoted above show that the detective advised Pierce that speaking to police would not cause harm, but in fact, would benefit him. This is a clear misstatement of Miranda. While it is true that a suspect need not be given all the information that “might” affect his decision to confess and that police do not have to supply a defendant “with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights,” Moran, 475 U.S. at 422, 106 S.Ct. 1135, it is also true that a waiver is not voluntarily and knowingly made if police have affected the ability of the suspect to understand the nature of the rights he is waiving. A waiver is not valid unless a suspect, “at all times knew he could stand mute and request a lawyer, and that he was aware of the State’s intention to use his statements to secure a conviction.””

The 1st DCA concluded that because Pierce’s waiver of his rights was the direct product of the officer’s “misstatement,” and the admission of his statements at trial was not harmless (e.g. may have impacted the jury verdict), a new trial was required:

“As Pierce’s waiver was procured by a misstatement as to effect of his waiver, it was not valid. See Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1999) (holding that any evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked, or cajoled into a waiver of Miranda rights will show that the defendant did not voluntarily waive his privilege); Dooley v. State, 743 So.2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).3 At trial, the State extensively utilized Pierce’s incriminating statements. The denial of the motion to suppress therefore cannot be deemed harmless, and we are constrained to reverse the resulting convictions and remand for further proceedings without use in the State’s case in chief of the statements made during the interrogation. See Ramirez; Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010).”

In sum, Pierce v. State, 221 So.3d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) marks a major development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding Miranda rights. The 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court) found that:

• The interrogating officer “tricked” Pierce by telling him that his statements could not “hurt him” (and by implication, it would benefit him to talk)
• This “trickery” caused Pierce to waive his rights and make a series of incriminating statements that were central to the State’s case against him at trial
• Because Pierce’s Miranda waiver was invalid, and the error of introducing the statements may have impacted the outcome of the proceedings, his convictions required reversal

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Pierce v. State, 221 So.3d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), as it makes clear the potential consequences if a defendant’s Miranda waiver is procured as a result of improper law enforcement tactics. 

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