Northeast FL’s Highest Court REVERSES 1st Degree Murder Conviction Over Miranda Rights Violation

April 20, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal ruled that law enforcement downplaying the importance of Miranda rights and delaying their administration rendered a defendant’s confession inadmissible in court – and that its wrongful introduction at her trial required REVERSAL of her conviction.

CASE: Rios v. State, 277 So.3d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)

Charge(s): First-Degree Murder, Armed Burglary

Outcome: Convictions REVERSED, as the defendant’s unlawfully obtained confession was used against him at trial impermissibly.

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, the SMART next move is to EXERCISE them! Tell law enforcement that you will be remaining silent and request an attorney. Do this CLEARLY AND OUT LOUD – as if you simply sit there quietly, law enforcement has permission to continue questioning you. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

It is commonly believed that law enforcement is required to read someone their Miranda rights at the moment they are arrested. However, this is incorrect. Someone must only be notified of their rights after they are taken into CUSTODY, but before they are INTERROGATED. Without both custody AND interrogation, no Miranda reading is necessary. For more, click here.

But what do these terms actually 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 elicit an incriminating response from a suspect. This may include accusing them of something nefarious or confronting them with evidence. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980). For more on interrogation, click here.

In the event that someone is read their Miranda rights, they can 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 Miranda rights at the start of a police interview, it is important to note a couple of things. The first is that this is not a PERMANENT waiver. Someone may invoke their rights at any point during custodial interrogation, even if they declined to do so at the start of questioning. 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 Miranda waivers is that someone’s decision to waive their rights at the start of interrogation must be 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 it – so the outcome of a criminal proceeding may be significantly influenced (especially if there is little to no corroborative evidence of the defendant’s guilt).

In one major case heard by Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal (Northeast FL’s highest court), a defendant was accused of first-degree murder. He was brought into the police station and read his Miranda rights before interrogation commenced.

But when law enforcement notified him of these rights, they were characterized as “a couple of formalities” that had to be dealt with before the conversation. This “minimization” of Miranda (e.g. downplaying its importance) preceded the defendant’s waiver of his rights and confession.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress before trial, arguing that law enforcement improperly obtained her Miranda waiver by DOWNPLAYING the significance of his Miranda rights (citing Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010)). The trial judge denied the motion – and the defendant’s confession was used against her at trial (e.g. played for the jury). She was convicted.

On appeal, the defendant renewed her argument that his post-Miranda confession was tainted by an invalid waiver (due to law enforcement referring to his rights as “formalities.”) The 5th DCA:

• Agreed with the defendant that her rights were violated by the downplaying of his rights, and
• REVERSED the defendant’s conviction on the basis that its wrongful admission at her trial was not harmless error (e.g. it may have impacted the jury’s verdict)

But what was the 5th DCA’s reasoning? Let’s look at the case – Rios v. State, 277 So.3d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) – and discuss what it means for those in Florida concerned about Miranda rights.

KEY CASE: Rios v. State, 277 So.3d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)

In Rios, the defendant (Rios) was charged with first-degree murder and armed burglary. She was ultimately convicted. At trial (and in the pretrial motion hearing), the following was revealed:

• Law enforcement asked Rios (a juvenile) to come to the police station for a voluntary interview
• Rios was interviewed briefly without being read her Miranda rights, before detectives left her alone in the interrogation room for hours
• She repeatedly expressed a desire to go home and for his guardian to be contacted, but this was not responded to
• Law enforcement then initiated another interview, without reading Rios her rights, and proceeded to question her for approximately 4 hours
• She was confronted with inconsistencies in his previous statements and evidence
• Law enforcement asked direct, incriminating questions – including whether she pulled the trigger
• They elicited multiple inculpatory statements from Rios
• Eventually, officers left, then came back for a third interview (over 9 hours after Rios was first brought to the police station)
• Rios was read her rights, which officers referred to as a “couple of formalities” 
• After waiving her Miranda rights, he gave a full confession to law enforcement

Before trial, Rios filed a motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements. She argued that:

• She was subject to custodial interrogation for hours without being read his rights at all, and
• Prior to being read her rights, law enforcement “minimized” these by referring to them as a “couple of formalities” (similar to Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010))

The trial judge DENIED Rios’s motion, and her confession was used against him at trial. Rios was found guilty on all counts by the jury. 

On appeal, Rios argued to the 5th DCA that Miranda warnings were required during her second interview (when Rios was first confronted with questions relating to her possible guilt). She also claimed that when law enforcement eventually did read her Miranda rights, their significance was impermissibly “minimized.”

The 5th DCA agreed, REVERSING Rios’s convictions on the grounds that her confession was improperly obtained and this was not harmless error (e.g. the confession may have influenced the jury’s verdict). The 5th DCA concluded that the second interview (lasting roughly 4 hours) was a custodial interrogation, writing:

“After considering the entire context of the encounter, we find that the second interview was custodial in nature because a reasonable person would not have felt that she was free to terminate the interview and leave. Here, Appellant only consented to going to the police station after the search of the Schafer residence. See Myers, 211 So. 3d at 975. Additionally, Appellant knew that she was a runaway, the residence being searched contained some stolen paraphernalia and a gun that had been used to commit crimes, and the police were questioning her co-defendants. Furthermore, law enforcement placed Appellant on the secured second floor of the police station, subjected her to video surveillance, required her to use an escort while in the building, and appeared to respond without any urgency to her requests to leave the room, specifically to use the restroom. … Given the totality of this knowledge, we conclude a reasonable person would have believed that her acquiescence to further questioning at the police station was merely perfunctory.”

“The next step in a custodial interrogation analysis is to ascertain whether the defendant was subjected to interrogation. … Arguably some of the detectives’ questions at the beginning of the interview may not qualify as interrogation. However, by the time Detective McElroy, for whatever purpose, asked Appellant, “Okay did you fire the trigger? Or pull the trigger?” the encounter became a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. A reasonable person would conclude that Detective McElroy’s yes or no question was intended to lead to an incriminating response about the specific crime.”

The 5th DCA concluded that law enforcement impermissibly delayed reading Rios her Miranda rights:

“We are concerned about law enforcement’s intentions in their delayed administration of Miranda warnings. Specifically, nine and a half hours had elapsed between the time Appellant entered the secured room, at approximately 3:00 p.m., and the time law enforcement advised her of her Miranda rights. During that protracted period, law enforcement subjected Appellant to extensive questioning regarding her status as a runaway, tumultuous family relationships, and ultimate knowledge of and participation in the murder and robbery. It was also during this prolonged solitary confinement that multiple law enforcement officers cycled through the room under the guise of having spoken with co-defendants and needing Appellant’s help. 

“They then confronted her with alleged inconsistencies in their stories. The impact of Appellant’s confinement reached a pinnacle at 9:40 p.m. when she told law enforcement that she needed “to go to sleep.”… Contrary to the State’s argument on appeal, these facts strongly suggest that law enforcement designed its tactics for no other purpose than to exhaust Appellant into admitting her involvement in the crime. Accordingly, we conclude that law enforcement used improper and deliberate tactics in delaying administration of Miranda warnings to Appellant in this case.”

Finally, the 5th DCA agreed with Rios’s contention that interrogating officers downplayed the importance of her rights in violation of Florida Supreme Court precedent. Concluding that the “totality of the circumstances” made Rios’s confession involuntary and its admission at her trial was not harmless error, the 5th DCA wrote:

We also conclude that Detective McElroy downplayed the significance of Miranda when she referred to it as “a couple of formalities.” … Moreover, the circumstances surrounding the interviews indicate that they were one continuous episode. For example, Appellant was confined to the same room, without access to her father, and was interrogated by the same personnel who referred to the information from the second interview that Appellant previously divulged. See id. at 432; Wright v. State, 161 So. 3d 442, 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). Finally, other factors, such as Appellant’s age, intelligence, denied access to her father prior to questioning, and limited experience with the criminal justice system, all weigh against her understanding the significance of her Miranda rights … Based on a review of the record, we cannot find that the erroneous admission of Appellant’s confession was harmless. The confession directly tied Appellant to the crime and presented a complete picture of events. … Under these circumstances, the State cannot show that the error was harmless. Consequently, we reverse Appellant’s convictions for first-degree murder and armed burglary of a dwelling and remand for a new trial without the introduction of Appellant’s statements to law enforcement in the second and third interviews.”

In sum, Rios v. State, 277 So.3d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding Miranda rights. The 5th DCA held that:

• Law enforcement impermissibly delayed the reading of Rios’s rights, only doing so after hours of interrogation
• A Miranda reading should’ve occurred during the second of three interviews far earlier in the day
• Moreover, when law enforcement did read Rios her rights, the significance of them was “downplayed” by the fact that they were referred to as “a couple of formalities”
• Rios’s age, low I.Q., and denied access to her father also weighed in favor of finding that her eventual waiver (and subsequent confession) were involuntary
• This means Rios’s confession should NOT have been used against her at trial
• Since it was, and this was not harmless error (e.g. may have impacted the jury’s finding), Rios’s convictions were REVERSED and the matter was remanded for a new trial to the lower court

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Rios v. State, 277 So.3d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), as it makes clear that if a defendant’s Miranda rights are clearly violated, Florida’s courts will step in and REVERSE their conviction(s).

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