What if A Miranda Waiver is Not Unconditional?

June 6, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

When someone is taken into custody by law enforcement, they must be notified of their Miranda rights before officers can interrogate them. Any waiver of someone’s rights to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during questioning must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

If someone agrees to speak with law enforcement and validly waives their rights in accordance with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, police may question a suspect. Moreover, any inculpatory statements the suspect makes during the course of the interrogation is admissible against them in court. 

But what happens if a suspect:

• Agrees to speak, but clarifies they do not wish to answer questions about a particular topic

• Agrees to speak, but only to a particular police officer
• Agrees to make verbal statements, but not written statements

In other words – what if someone waives their Miranda rights, but only does so conditionally? This article will discuss how a conditional Miranda waiver impacts an interrogation, and whether statements made by a defendant after a conditional waiver are admissible against them in a court of law.

Florida’s courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have distinguished between two types of conditional Miranda waivers: waivers with express conditions, and waivers with ambiguous (unclear) conditions. Both are incomplete Miranda waivers, but require different responses from law enforcement. 

If a suspect is notified in writing of his Miranda rights and offers a waiver with express conditions, those conditions must be honored during the interrogation. Otherwise, any statements made by the suspect (such as a confession) are inadmissible in a court of law.

One such example is Connecticut v. Barrett. There, Barrett notified police officers after being read his rights that he agreed to speak with them – but refused to put any statements in writing. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that despite the fact that the waiver was conditional, any oral (spoken) statement made by Barrett remained admissible – as he agreed to talk with the officers. Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523 (1987)

Barrett makes clear that if a suspect places constraints on what officers can ask them, any incriminating statements resulting from an interrogative question that exceeds these boundaries is inadmissible. But what if a suspect does not unconditionally waive Miranda, and also does not give the officer clear limits as to what they can ask of the suspect?

Florida’s courts are unanimous: if officers interrogate a suspect who makes a conditional Miranda waiver, without first clarifying the conditions of the waiver, any incriminating statements made by the suspect cannot be used against them in court. This is because a Miranda waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966)

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

As a matter of law, a vague, conditional waiver must be clarified before questioning can proceed. If a suspect’s waiver is ambiguous because they made a statement such as:

• “I’ll talk, but if you try to twist my words, I’m done”
• “I’ll talk, but it depends on what you ask me”
• “I’ll talk, but I don’t want questions that are too personal”
• “I’ll talk, but I don’t want this held against me”

Officers must clarify whether the suspect truly wishes to waive their rights – or clarify the parameters of the interrogation – before questioning begins. Alvarez v. State, 15 So.3d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). 

The U.S. Supreme Court has also addressed the issue of ambiguous Miranda waivers without conditions attached. In Davis v. United States, Davis said approximately 90 minutes into a police interrogation, “Maybe I want to talk to a lawyer.” Officers paused the interrogation and asked Davis to clarify whether this was a formal request for counsel. When Davis said it was not, the interrogation continued, leading to a confession. 

The Court upheld the admission of Davis’ confession. The Court stated that once a suspect has waived his rights, any subsequent invocation of his rights must be unequivocal. However, the Court clarified that if an equivocal waiver is offered before the suspect has already waived their rights (“Maybe I should get a lawyer”), officers must clarify the suspect’s intentions before continuing questioning. Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) 

If a Miranda waiver is found to be invalid on the basis that it was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary – or interrogation of a suspect took place despite the failure to clarify a conditional waiver – statements from the interrogation cannot be admitted against the suspect in court. Dooley v. State, 743 So.2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)

In sum, there are two types of conditional Miranda waivers – those with express conditions, and those with vague or ambiguous conditions. If a suspect expressly limits what he will answer questions about (“I’ll talk, but not about the gun”) or how he will answer them (“I’ll talk, but I won’t write anything down”), an interrogation may proceed subject to these conditions.

However, if a suspect gives a waiver that is vague or ambiguous, officers must ask questions to define whether the suspect truly wishes to waive their rights – and if so, under what conditions. If officers proceed with further questioning and do not ask clarifying questions, Alvarez renders any confession from the suspect inadmissible in court.

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