What is Custody for Miranda Purposes in Florida?

July 7, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, someone must be notified of their Miranda rights if they are taken into custody by police and officers intend to interrogate that suspect. These include all of the following:

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

It is a common misconception that every time police ask someone a question that is potentially connected to criminal activity, they must first read them their Miranda rights. But for a reading of someone’s Miranda rights to be legally required, someone must be taken into custody by law enforcement (and be subject to interrogation while in custody).

This raises an important question – what is considered “custody” for purposes of when officers must read a suspect their Miranda rights? This article will explore how custody has been defined in this context by both Florida’s courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Courts have been consistent that before someone is subject to interrogative questioning, they must be read their rights. It is impermissible for law enforcement to take a suspect into custody and ask them questions that may potentially produce incriminating information without first notifying them of their rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966); Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004)

But when is someone considered in custody? The answer is that custody for Miranda purposes is determined by the totality of the circumstances. Specifically, the courts must find whether or not a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would believe their freedom of action was being restricted to a degree associated with actual arrest. Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010)

Notably, it is not required that someone is formally arrested before reading Miranda is necessary. The Florida Supreme Court has adopted a four-factor test to guide courts in determining whether notifying a suspect of their rights is constitutionally required. State v. Pitts, 936 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2006). These include:

• The manner in which law enforcement officers summon the suspect for questioning
• The purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation
• The extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of their guilt
• Whether the suspect is informed that they are free to leave 

A central case on this issue is Ross v. State. Ross was accused of first-degree murder. Officers summoned him to the police station, where they proceeded to adversarially question him about his involvement in the alleged murders without first notifying him of his Miranda rights. Only after they elicited incriminatory statements from him did they read Ross his rights. Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010)

As these statements were introduced at Ross’s trial as evidence of his guilt, the Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction. A central claim by the Ross majority was that the appellant was in custody for Miranda purposes long before he was read his rights. The court cited some of the following facts:

• Officers did not indicate to Ross that he was free to leave
• Ross was summoned to the police station and interrogated in a manner consistent with a suspect post-arrest (even though he had not been formally arrested)
• Ross was consistently confronted with evidence of his guilt and questions implying officers knew of his culpability 
• The apparent purpose of the interrogation was to extract information for the purpose of using against Ross at a future date

Ross affirms the fact that a key question in evaluating custody for Miranda purposes is whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have felt free to leave. This is an objective test, meaning that even if the suspect subjectively believed they were in custody, this is insufficient to establish custody unless that belief was reasonable. Wilson v. State, 242 So.3d 484 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2018)

Critically, the U.S. Supreme Court and Florida’s courts have clarified that not all restraints on freedom of movement automatically amount to someone being in “custody” for purposes of requiring a Miranda warning. Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012); State v. Thompson, 193 So.3d 916 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2016)

In Fields, a prisoner was taken from his cell and subject to questioning regarding a separate criminal incident he was allegedly involved in prior to his incarceration. Officers did not first read him his rights, and he eventually made inculpatory statements. 

The U.S. Supreme Court held that Miranda warnings are required only if the conditions surrounding the questioning are coercive enough that a reasonable person would not feel free to end the questioning and return to normal life. The Court ruled that because Fields was told by the officers he could leave and go back to his cell, the sole fact that he was in prison did not trigger Miranda reading requirements.

In Thompson, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal similarly held that “environment alone” is insufficient to establish custody for Miranda purposes. There, Thompson consented to five sessions of questioning from officers where she was free to leave – including in a police station. The inculpatory statements she made in her final voluntary interview were used against her at trial and she was convicted.

On appeal, Thompson asserted that the fact that she was inside a police station created an objectively reasonable perception that she was in custody, requiring a Miranda reading. But the court disagreed. The court found that based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have believed they were in custody at the time the statements were given.

In sum, whether someone is in custody for purposes of requiring a Miranda reading depends on the totality of the circumstances. These circumstances include: the manner in which the suspect was summoned for questioning, the purpose, place and manner of the interrogation, the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of their guilt, and whether they are told they are free to leave.

Florida’s courts have emphasized that determination of custody in the context of requiring the reading of a Miranda warning is an objective inquiry. Custody occurs when a reasonable person would have believed that their freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with actual arrest, and that they were not free to end the questioning and leave. Bell v. State, 201 So.3d 1267 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2016)

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