When is a Juvenile’s Miranda Waiver Knowing, Intelligent and Voluntary in Florida?

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

In Florida and all 50 U.S. states, officers are required to read suspects their Miranda rights before subjecting them to custodial interrogation. According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Miranda v. Arizona decision, this includes formally notifying a suspect of all of the following:

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

If a juvenile (someone under the age of 18) is questioned as a suspect in a criminal case, law enforcement is under exactly the same obligation to notify them of their rights. Just like when an adult is read their rights, a juvenile’s waiver of their Miranda rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. 

A Miranda waiver occurs when a suspect agrees to be questioned by police without exercising their right to remain silent or right to an attorney. If a waiver is not made with full awareness of both the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them, the waiver is invalid. State v. Herrera, 201 So.3d 192 (Fla 2d. DCA 2016). 

Florida’s courts have unique criteria for determining whether a juvenile’s Miranda waiver was valid (knowing, intelligent, and voluntary). This article will explore these criteria and answer the important question of when a juvenile’s Miranda waiver is considered knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

The validity of a Miranda waiver may be critical to the outcome of a criminal case involving a juvenile. If the court finds a suspect did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive their rights, the proper remedy is the suppression of all post-waiver statements the suspect made to law enforcement. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966)

If prosecutors are prohibited from using such statements at trial, this can fundamentally alter the outcome of a criminal case. This makes it critical to understand how the validity of a juvenile’s Miranda waiver is determined by Florida’s courts. 

The validity of a juvenile’s waiver of their Miranda rights is determined by the use of a “totality of the circumstances” test. In evaluating this, courts must consider the following context:

• The juvenile’s age, experience, background, and intelligence 
• The way in which the Miranda warnings were administered (spoken, read, or both)
• Whether the juvenile had the opportunity to consult with their parent or guardian
• The location of the interrogation
• Whether a written waiver was obtained before interrogation commenced 

A seminal case on this issue is Ramirez v. State. Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1999). In Ramirez, the Florida Supreme Court outlined various factors to assess the validity of a juvenile’s Miranda waiver.

The five factors listened by the Ramirez court are:

• The manner in which the rights were administered/read – including any cajoling, trickery, or deception that may have been used by law enforcement
• The juvenile’s age, experience in the justice system, background, and intelligence
• Whether the juvenile’s parents were contacted (law enforcement is required to make a reasonable effort to contact), and whether the juvenile had an opportunity to consult with them before questioning
• Whether the questioning occurred at a police station
• Whether the interrogating officers secured a juvenile’s written waiver of their rights at the outset (before questioning began)

Courts have consistently applied these factors to determine whether a juvenile’s Miranda waiver is legally valid.

In Ramirez itself, the court found that the juvenile’s waiver was invalid due to the following facts:

• The officers were coercive and misleading while reading Ramirez his rights
• Ramirez had limited experience with the justice system, indicating that he likely did not have a previous understanding of his rights
• The officers failed to reach out to Ramirez’s parents before questioning him

The opportunity for a juvenile to consult with a parent or guardian before questioning is a particularly significant factor under Ramirez. Though the absence of a juvenile’s parents during an interrogation does not automatically invalidate a waiver of their rights, law enforcement must make a “meaningful attempt” to contact a juvenile suspect’s parents prior to interrogating them. Benitez v. State, 952 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2007)

Just as critical are the factors of a juvenile’s age, experience, background and intelligence.

In cases involving children as young as ten with low IQs (such as J.G. v. State, 883 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)) courts have still been willing to uphold the validity of a waiver if the juvenile:

• Has prior experience with the juvenile justice system
• Demonstrates an ability to understand the Miranda warning(s) despite their age and intelligence 

But if law enforcement uses cajoling or trickery to obtain a waiver from a juvenile, this renders the waiver invalid – requiring the suppression of all subsequent statements made by the suspect.  Fields v. State, 402 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)

In Fields, the appellant made a confession to officers after they made “false assertions apparently calculated to delude appellant and destroy his resistance” – including leading him to believe he could only have an attorney if he could pay for one. The 1st DCA reversed Fields’ conviction after his post-Miranda confession was improperly introduced at trial.

The existence of a written waiver obtained before the beginning of questioning and the location of questioning can also be decisive in evaluating if a juvenile’s Miranda waiver was valid. In McIntosh, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld a juvenile waiver, noting that the juvenile signed a written acknowledgment of his rights and demonstrated understanding of them during questioning at a police station. McIntosh v. State, 37 So.3d 914 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2010) 

But in the absence of a written waiver, courts are reluctant to find that a juvenile waiving their rights after only a spoken warning is sufficient to ensure the waiver’s validity – especially if the interrogation occurs inside a police station. Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1999). 

While interrogation at a station does not render a juvenile’s waiver invalid alone, Ramirez noted that police must take special precautions to ensure the waiver was not obtained as a result of coercion, including providing a written form (due to the inherently coercive atmosphere of a police station). Id.

Importantly, officers must not initiate custodial interrogation of a juvenile (or adult) that is reasonably likely to elicit incriminatory statements without first reading Miranda, then notify them of their rights only after they have made inculpatory remarks in response to questioning. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) 

In cases where the validity of a juvenile’s waiver is disputed, the State bears a “heavy burden” in proving that the waiver was indeed valid. The State must prove by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence that the waiver was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Florida’s courts have recognized juveniles are entitled to heightened protections during custodial interrogations due to their age and vulnerability. T. B. v. State, 306 So.2d 183 (Fla. 2d. DCA 1975) 

In sum, the validity of a juvenile’s waiver of their Miranda rights can be a major issue in a Florida juvenile criminal case. If a juvenile suspect’s waiver is found to have been invalid (not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary), all the statements they made to law enforcement following the waiver are considered inadmissible at trial.

Courts use various factors to evaluate the validity of a juvenile’s waiver. This includes the juvenile’s age, background, intelligence, and experience, the location of the interrogation, whether the waiver was written, and whether officers made a reasonable effort to contact the juvenile’s parent or guardian.

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