Officer Telling Suspect To “Clear Conscience” After He Invoked Miranda Rights Was Impermissible: Major Florida Court

December 19, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that an officer’s statements to a defendant after he requested a lawyer were impermissible, and that the subsequent admission of the confession at the defendant’s trial required the reversal of the guilty verdict.

In Florida, the question of whether a suspect’s post-arrest statements were the product of a voluntary Miranda waiver or improper police conduct is an important one to answer. If someone is read their Miranda rights and persuaded not to exercise them by law enforcement, this renders any subsequent statements they make inadmissible in court (e.g. at trial).

Per the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), your Miranda rights include:

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

Under Miranda, suspects must be notified of these rights after they are taken into custody by police, but before they are subject to interrogation. Moore v. State, 798 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)

Custody for Miranda purposes (e.g. requiring officers to read a defendant their rights) occurs when a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would not feel free to terminate questioning and leave. For more on when someone is considered “in 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. Per Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), this cannot occur once a suspect is in custody until the suspect has been read their rights and waived them. For more on interrogation, click here.

If someone is read their Miranda rights in Florida, the smart next move is to exercise them. Tell law enforcement that you will be remaining silent and ask for an attorney. Say this out loud, then be quiet – as if you simply remain silent without clarifying your intent to exercise your rights, police can keep questioning you. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

Just because someone waives their Miranda rights and agrees to speak with law enforcement after an arrest (e.g. custodial interrogation) without a lawyer present, does not mean that all of the statements that suspect makes are automatically admissible in court.

Courts require that a Miranda waiver (choosing not to exercise your rights) have been knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In Florida, courts conduct a “totality of the circumstances” analysis to determine if such a waiver occurred (which allows a defendant’s post-arrest statements to be used against them in court). For more on this process, click here.

Sometimes, a suspect who is arrested may be read their Miranda rights and immediately ask for an attorney (or say they will be remaining silent, or both). If and when this occurs, officers must immediately cease all interrogation until a lawyer arrives or the suspect voluntarily reinitiates contact with law enforcement. Miranda at 473.

But what if a suspect invokes their Miranda rights – yet officers say something to the suspect that causes them to reconsider their invocation (decision to remain silent/get a lawyer) and re-engage with law enforcement? Is this permitted under Florida law?

The answer to this question is – no. Not only that, but such conduct by law enforcement may lead to a defendant’s conviction being thrown out if the resulting incriminating statements are introduced into evidence at the defendant’s trial.

Let’s take a look at a case where exactly this happened – Calder v. State, 133 So.3d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) – and what it means for the Miranda rights of defendants in Florida criminal cases.

KEY CASE: Calder v. State, 133 So.3d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 

In Calder, the defendant (Calder) was arrested after he allegedly shot and killed another man in front of his girlfriend during an argument in their apartment. Calder was brought into the police station after being arrested to be questioned.

After being read his Miranda rights, Calder told Detective Sessions (the interrogating detective) that he would “prefer a lawyer.” He noted the fact that he was entitled to a lawyer if he could not afford one, and asked that one be present before any further questioning occurred.

Instead of disengaging, Sessions lamented Calder’s decision to ask for a lawyer (“Now, the only thing is at that point in time I’m not gonna be able to get your side of the story and I’m not gonna be able to present your side of the story to the State Attorney’s office.”). But Calder insisted that he wanted one present (“I feel comfortable going to a lawyer.”).

After realizing Calder was not budging, Detective Sessions told Calder it was indeed his right to have a lawyer present and began to walk out the door. However, before leaving Calder alone in the interrogation room, Sessions said the following:

“[I]f you do change your mind and you do want to talk to me about your side of the story, okay, what I need you to do is—knock on the door but knock kind of loud, just knock on it kind of loud, I’ll come back in and then if you say you know what, Detective Sessions, I really, it really would make me feel better if I got the opportunity to give my side of the story, talk about what happened on Saturday, I know what happened, okay? I know that it’s very difficult for you and it’s going to be tough for you to sleep because the bottom line is you been through a tough situation and nobody wants to be in your shoes, obviously, but at the same time one of the things that makes somebody feel a lot better is if they get the opportunity to get things off of their chest, it kind of clears their mind, it clears their conscious [sic] and it makes them feel better, you know.”

After Detective Sessions shut the door, Calder cried for several minutes – then opened the door and asked to speak again with the detective. The detective returned, administered a Miranda warning again, and Calder confessed to fatally shooting the victim. His confession was used against him at trial (introduced into evidence), and Calder was convicted.

On appeal, Calder argued that his Miranda rights were violated during the interrogation, because the detective was required to disengage once he advised that he wanted a lawyer present. Calder argued that because the detective’s “parting words” before leaving the room were designed to get Calder to “talk,” this was continued interrogation in violation of Miranda.

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal (Southeast Florida) agreed with Calder and reversed his murder conviction, remanding to the lower court for a new trial. Noting Calder “unequivocally” invoked his right to counsel multiple times, the 4th DCA wrote:

“Contrary to the state’s argument that Calder’s invocation of his right to counsel was equivocal, the trial court correctly determined that Calder’s statement to the detective that he would “feel comfortable going to a lawyer” was an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel. Moreover, the record shows that Calder made several statements during the interview that clearly invoked his right to counsel. As we commented in Moss, ‘it is hard to imagine more unequivocal statements.’”

The 4th DCA found that Detective Sessions continued to improperly engage in conversation with Calder even after he had invoked his right to counsel:

“The record reveals that after Calder made his unequivocal request for counsel, the detective did not cease questioning him. Instead, he continued talking to Calder in an effort to coax him into speaking without counsel. The detective kept reminding Calder that this was his opportunity to present his side of the story and that doing so would benefit him. He further suggested that Calder might feel more comfortable telling his side of the story if he recorded the statement. He told Calder, however, that the only way he could record the interview was if Calder agreed to speak without a lawyer. The detective also told Calder that he would feel better and be able to sleep better at night if he got some things off his conscience.”

Concluding that Detective Sessions’ “coaxing” constituted interrogation in violation of Calder’s Miranda rights (given he had invoked them), the 4th DCA reversed Calder’s conviction:

“In this case, it cannot be seriously questioned that the officer’s improper comments, after Calder invoked his right to counsel, were designed to induce him to reinitiate the communication without a lawyer. This ploy was successful, bringing Calder to tears and prompting him to ask to speak to the detective only a few minutes after the first interrogation had ended. … Here, the totality of the circumstances shows that Calder’s reinitiation of the interrogation and waiver of his previously invoked right to counsel were not voluntary, but instead, the product of improper police conduct. Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court erred in denying Calder’s motion to suppress his confession. Because we cannot consider this error to be harmless, we reverse for a new trial.”

In sum, Calder v. State, 133 So.3d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) is a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding continued interrogation despite a suspect’s invocation of their Miranda rights.

The 4th DCA found that because all of the following were true, Calder’s Miranda rights were violated:

• Calder asked immediately for an attorney (multiple times) after he was read his rights
• Detective Sessions continued “interrogating” Calder in spite of the requirement that he immediately disengage – subtly urging him to “clear his conscience”
• Calder’s reinitiation of the interrogation/subsequent confession were a direct result of the improper statements made by the detective
• Because Calder’s confession was used against him at trial and this was not “harmless error” (e.g. may have impacted the verdict), his conviction required reversal

As you can see, Calder is an intriguing, defendant-friendly case on the issue of Miranda rights in Florida that reinforces the requirement of immediate disengagement by officers when a suspect exercises their rights. If continued engagement in violation of Miranda produces a confession (as it did in Calder), that confession is inadmissible.

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