What is Interrogation for Miranda Purposes in Florida?

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

When someone is taken into custody in Florida by law enforcement, they must be notified of their Miranda rights before they are subject to interrogation. These include:

• 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

If officers fail to provide a Miranda warning (or improperly delay a warning) and subject a suspect to custodial interrogation, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a suspect’s statements in response to that questioning (such as confessions) are inadmissible in a court of law. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966); Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010)

But what is “interrogation” for Miranda purposes, and what kind of conduct by law enforcement while a suspect is in custody constitutes interrogation? This blog will discuss the answer to this important question.

A common misconception is the belief that every time police question someone relating to a crime, they must first read their Miranda rights. But this is not the case. For Miranda to be required, two conditions must be met:

• The suspect has been taken into custody by law enforcement (even if they have not been formally arrested, a reasonable person in the suspect’s position must feel their freedom of action is restricted in the manner of an arrest)
• Law enforcement intends to interrogate the suspect

For purposes of requiring a Miranda reading, interrogation refers to any express questioning or its functional equivalent by law enforcement officers that they should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect. Timmons v. State, 961 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Interrogation extends beyond direct questioning to include any words or actions by the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and/or custody) that are likely to provoke an incriminating response from a suspect. Some examples of interrogative questions may include:

• “Where did you hide the weapon?”
• “Did you break into the store last night?”
• “How much money did you take from the scene?”

Such questions are prohibited if a suspect is in custody without officers first notifying the suspect of their Miranda rights. But the U.S. Supreme Court has also barred police from engaging in the “functional equivalent” of interrogative questioning before reading Miranda – 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)

Examples of law enforcement action that may be characterized as the “functional equivalent” of interrogation for Miranda purposes may include:

• An officer lays bloody clothes down in front of a silent suspect and says, “This tells the whole story.”
• An officer says, “Your friend already told us everything. You might as well tell us your side.”
• An officer says, “I know you didn’t mean to hurt anyone. If you talk to me, I can help.”

Though the officers in these hypothetical examples are not technically asking questions, this interrogative conduct is impermissible unless someone is first read their Miranda rights – and waives them knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

Important: A Miranda waiver must be the product of free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. It 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. State v. Herrera, 201 So.3d 192 (Fla 2d. DCA 2016). 

In evaluating whether officers engaged in interrogation or its functional equivalent, courts are to consider primarily what the suspect perceived, rather than the subjective intent of officers. This is intended to ensure that someone who is questioned is protected against coercive tactics. Pierre v. State, 22 So.3d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). 

According to Wilson v. State, the primary considerations of courts in determining whether a suspect was subject to interrogation are:

• The subjective perception of the suspect regarding whether they believe interrogation was occurring
• Whether the suspect was objectively interrogated (or the police conduct was reasonably likely to produce an incriminatory response)

In Wilson, law enforcement did not read the appellant his rights before conducting their interview of him.

The court observed that despite the officers not technically asking Wilson interrogative questions before reading Miranda, they used tactics such as:

• Making promises of leniency
• Representing that he did not need an attorney 
• Insisted that he could rely on the good morals of the police department

Wilson noted that under State v. McAdams, interrogation for Miranda purposes occurs “when a state agent asks questions or engages in actions that a reasonable person would conclude are intended to lead to an incriminating response.” As the actions of officers were engineered to produce incriminating responses from Wilson, he was considered to have been interrogated, leading to the reversal of the trial court’s verdict. 

In sum, interrogation for Miranda purposes occurs when a state agent asks questions or engages in actions that a reasonable person would conclude are intended to lead to an incriminating response. The Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts have held that even in the absence of explicit questions, a suspect can still be considered to have been “interrogated” for Miranda purposes.

Before law enforcement can ask questions or engage in conduct that is reasonably likely to produce an incriminating response, they must notify someone of their Miranda rights and receive permission to continue questioning (McAdams and Innis). That permission (waiver) must be given knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966)

In evaluating whether interrogation occurred, courts will consider both the objective actions of law enforcement and the subjective perception of the suspect as to whether interrogation was occurring. Wilson v. State, 242 So.3d 484 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2018)

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