What Are My Miranda Rights in Florida?

July 8, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, law enforcement is required to read someone their Miranda rights before subjecting them to custodial interrogation. Though these rights may seem straightforward, the outcome of many criminal cases hinges on the validity (or invalidity) of a suspect waiving their Miranda rights and agreeing to speak with law enforcement.

If law enforcement does not advise someone of all their Miranda rights, or officers use trickery, deception, or minimization in order to get a suspect to waive their rights and speak with them, any subsequent statements made by a suspect (including a confession) are inadmissible in court. 

This raises the important question – what are my Miranda rights, and how can I properly exercise them in a criminal case? This article will discuss what your Miranda rights are in Florida, how to properly exercise them, and what is required for a legally valid Miranda waiver (allowing police to use a suspect’s statements against them in court).

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, a suspect must be advised of all of the following rights by law enforcement after they are taken into custody and before they are subject to interrogation or its “functional equivalent”:

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

The first of these rights is critical – the right to remain silent. Under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, someone who is arrested in a criminal case has the right to protect themselves against compelled self-incrimination.

In practice, this means police and prosecutors:

• Can’t force someone to speak with them about details of a crime without their consent 
• Can’t call someone to testify regarding their guilt in a criminal case 

The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was heavily influenced by the Star Chamber in England. The Star Chamber was a secret English court in which suspects (especially religious dissidents) would be forced to swear oaths and answer all questions posed to them by the court – often leading to their self-incrimination. 

As the Founding Fathers wished to avoid a similar fate for America, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was authored to do the following (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)):

• Prevent coerced confessions (confessions that are not the product of someone’s free will)
• Ensure fail legal processes
• Protect against unchecked government abuses of power, including wrongful prosecutions
• Preserve the presumption of innocence at criminal trials

As the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives anyone taken into custody and subject to police interrogation the right to remain silent, it is critical to take advantage of this right. If someone is taken into custody, they should invoke their right to remain silent and ask for an attorney. This is because anything they say can and will be used against them in court.

Note: Courts have held that simply remaining silent after officers finish reading someone their Miranda rights is insufficient to invoke the right to remain silent. Someone being interrogated must explicitly indicate they wish to remain silent and/or ask for an attorney. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010).

The notification that someone’s post-Miranda statements can and will be used against them in court is a similarly critical aspect of the Miranda warning. This is because without the knowledge that someone’s statements may be used as evidence against them in future legal proceedings, they may choose to speak with police and incriminate themselves without understanding the consequences. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479.

The next Miranda right someone has in Florida is their right to an attorney. Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, defendants in criminal trials are guaranteed the right to legal representation. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Critically, this right also exists when a suspect in a criminal case is being questioned by the police.

It is important to note that not all law enforcement questioning requires that someone be notified of their Miranda rights, including the right to an attorney. Miranda only applies if a suspect is subject to custodial interrogation. California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) 

“Custody” is generally defined as when a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would not feel free to leave. Interrogation is generally defined as when police engage in questioning or its “functional equivalent” that is reasonably likely to produce an incriminating response from the party being questioned. Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995)

If custodial interrogation is about to occur, the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney kicks in. Critically, when a suspect is notified of this right, they must specifically be advised that they have the right to an attorney during police questioning – not just in the legal proceedings that may follow their arrest. Miller v. State, 42 So.3d 204 (Fla. 2010); Roberts v. State, 874 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)

When someone invokes their right to an attorney, law enforcement must immediately cease questioning of a suspect and allow them to consult with a lawyer. Only if the suspect knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waives their rights may police resume questioning. Moreover, police officers are not permitted to interrogate the suspect without an attorney present if the suspect requests an attorney during questioning. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981)

If someone is taken into custody and read their Miranda rights, they should immediately invoke them. But if someone waives their rights (agreeing to be questioned by law enforcement without a lawyer), their waiver must be the product of free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. State v. Herrera, 201 So.3d 192 (Fla 2d. DCA 2016). 

Moreover, a Miranda waiver 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. Id.

If law enforcement fails to obtain a knowing, intelligent and voluntary Miranda waiver and proceeds to question a suspect anyway, that suspect’s statements are inadmissible against them in court.

A failure to obtain a valid waiver may occur if an officer:

• Misreads a suspect’s Miranda rights
• Omits certain portions of the warning
• Mischaracterizes what someone’s rights are when asked 
• Deliberately minimizes the significance of someone’s rights (by discounting them as something purely procedural or insignificant)
• Uses deception or trickery to obtain a waiver (“You only need to exercise your rights if you’re guilty,” etc.)
• Fails to read someone their rights before initiating custodial interrogation 
• Deliberately delays reading someone’s rights until after eliciting a confession from them in response to interrogation – then subsequently reads their rights knowing they are unlikely to invoke them (Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004))

In sum, a suspect’s Miranda rights in Florida include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney (including during police questioning). Moreover, as part of a Miranda warning, police must notify a suspect that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law.

Someone must be notified of their Miranda rights (“Mirandized”) after law enforcement takes them into custody but before subjecting them to interrogation or its “functional equivalent” (words or actions that may not be in the form of a question but are likely to elicit incriminating responses). Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)

For someone’s post-Miranda statements to be used against them in court, they must waive their Miranda rights (choose not to exercise them) knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. If officers use coercion, deception or trickery to convince a suspect to waive their rights and confess, any post-Miranda statements the suspect makes (including confessions) are inadmissible in court. 

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