administration of Miranda warning in Florida

12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2019 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
WM v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1991 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010 2 sentences 2010Further, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, “the State bears a ‘heavy burden’ to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel.” Id. at 575 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 724 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; W.M. v. State, 585 So.2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)). 2010Further, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, "the State bears a `heavy burden' to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel." Id. at 575 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 724 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; W.M. v. State, 585 So.2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)).	2	2
Ross v. Stategreen fla · 2010 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2017–2018 2 sentences 2017Standard of Review for Determining “Custody” “Determining whether the defendant was ‘in custody' so as to require the administration of Miranda warnings involves a mixed question of law and fact subject to independent review.” Ross, 45 So.3d at 414 . 2017Standard of Review for Determining “Custody” “Determining whether the defendant was ‘in custody’ so as to require the administration of Miranda warnings involves a mixed question of law and fact subject to independent review.” Ross, 45 So. 3d at 414 .	1	2
Davis v. Stategreen fla · 1997 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017Id. at 314 ; see also Davis v. State, 698 So. 2d 1182, 1189 (Fla. 1997) (“Shortly after confessing in his holding cell, Davis gave a taped statement in which he voluntarily gave the same information contained in his prior statement. . . .	1	1
Terry v. Ohiogreen scotus · 1968 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (stating that a seizure under the Fourth Amendment occurs only “when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way retrained the liberty of a citizen”). 2010See Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (stating that a seizure under the Fourth Amendment occurs only "when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way retrained the liberty of a citizen").	1	1
Medina v. Stategreen fla · 1985 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 984, 987 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1548 , 140 L.Ed.2d 695 (1998); Medina v. State, 466 So.2d 1046, 1049 (Fla. 1985). [19] I take issue with the following statement by the majority: Moreover, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, the State bears a "heavy burden" to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel, especially where the suspect is a juvenile.	1	1
Escobar v. Stategreen fla · 1997 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 984, 987 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1548 , 140 L.Ed.2d 695 (1998); Medina v. State, 466 So.2d 1046, 1049 (Fla. 1985). [19] I take issue with the following statement by the majority: Moreover, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, the State bears a "heavy burden" to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel, especially where the suspect is a juvenile.	1	1
Berkemer v. McCartygreen scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 2 sentences 1990See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 , 301 n. 5, 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 1690 n. 5, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 , 308 n. 5 (1980). 1990See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 , 301 n. 5, 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 1690 n. 5, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 , 308 n. 5 (1980).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Ramirez v. State green fla · 1999 2 sentences 2017“Further, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, ‘the State bears a “heavy burden” to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel.’ ” Id. (quoting Ramirez, 739 So. 2d at 575 ). 2017“Further, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, ‘the State bears a “heavy burden” to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel.’ ” Id. (quoting Ramirez, 739 So. 2d at 575 ).	3	2017–2019
Miranda v. Arizona green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 2017“The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 . -8- In Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), the United States Supreme Court addressed a defendant’s statement that was made after he waived his Miranda rights but where the defendant had previously made an incriminating statement before the administration of Miranda warnings. 2010Further, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, "the State bears a `heavy burden' to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel." Id. at 575 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 724 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; W.M. v. State, 585 So.2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)).	3	2009–2017
Colorado v. Connelly green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2010Further, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, "the State bears a `heavy burden' to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel." Id. at 575 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 724 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; W.M. v. State, 585 So.2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)). 2010Further, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, "the State bears a `heavy burden' to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel." Id. at 575 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 724 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; W.M. v. State, 585 So.2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)).	3	1999–2010
Oregon v. Elstad green scotus · 1985 2 sentences 2017“The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 . -8- In Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), the United States Supreme Court addressed a defendant’s statement that was made after he waived his Miranda rights but where the defendant had previously made an incriminating statement before the administration of Miranda warnings. 2017Id. at 314 ; see also Davis v. State, 698 So. 2d 1182, 1189 (Fla. 1997) (“Shortly after confessing in his holding cell, Davis gave a taped statement in which he voluntarily gave the same information contained in his prior statement. . . .	2	1990–2017
Caldwell v. State green fla · 2010 2 sentences 2011Similarly, in Caldwell v. State, 41 So.3d 188 (Fla.2010), the Supreme Court held that the administration of Miranda warnings, as a matter of law, does not transform a consensual encounter into a seizure. 2011Similarly, in Caldwell v. State, 41 So.3d 188 (Fla.2010), the Supreme Court held that the administration of Miranda warnings, as a matter of law, does not transform a consensual encounter into a seizure.	2	2011–2011
Fare v. Michael C. green scotus · 1979 2 sentences 2010Further, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, "the State bears a `heavy burden' to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel." Id. at 575 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 724 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; W.M. v. State, 585 So.2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)). 2010Further, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, "the State bears a `heavy burden' to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel." Id. at 575 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 724 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; W.M. v. State, 585 So.2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)).	2	2009–2010
Thompson v. Keohane green scotus · 1995 2 sentences 2017In Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995), the United States Supreme Court explained why such independent review is necessary: [Classifying “in custody” as a determination qualifying for independent review should serve legitimate law enforcement interests as effectively as it serves to ensure protection of the right against self-incrimination. 2017In Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995), the United States Supreme Court explained why such independent review is necessary: - 17 - [C]lassifying “in custody” as a determination qualifying for independent review should serve legitimate law enforcement interests as effectively as it serves to ensure protection of the right against self-incrimination.	1	2017–2017
State v. Myers green fladistctapp · 2015 2 sentences 2017Myers, 169 So.3d at 1231-32 . 2017Myers, 169 So. 3d at 1231-32 .	1	2017–2017
Connor v. State green fla · 2001 2 sentences 2010Connor, 803 So.2d at 605-06 . 2010Connor, 803 So.2d at 605-06 .	1	2010–2010
Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co. green scotus · 1998 1 sentence 1999Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 984, 987 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1548 , 140 L.Ed.2d 695 (1998); Medina v. State, 466 So.2d 1046, 1049 (Fla. 1985). [19] I take issue with the following statement by the majority: Moreover, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, the State bears a "heavy burden" to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel, especially where the suspect is a juvenile.	1	1999–1999
Gore v. Enterprise green scotus · 1998 1 sentence 1999Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 984, 987 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1548 , 140 L.Ed.2d 695 (1998); Medina v. State, 466 So.2d 1046, 1049 (Fla. 1985). [19] I take issue with the following statement by the majority: Moreover, where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, the State bears a "heavy burden" to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel, especially where the suspect is a juvenile.	1	1999–1999
Rhode Island v. Innis green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 1990See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 , 301 n. 5, 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 1690 n. 5, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 , 308 n. 5 (1980). 1990See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 , 301 n. 5, 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 1690 n. 5, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 , 308 n. 5 (1980).	1	1990–1990

Where else courts name it

NY 130 (1977–2025) NJ 45 (1987–2026) IL 18 (1986–2023) PA 17 (1985–2026) CA 16 (1990–2024) MA 14 (1989–2025) FL 12 (1990–2019) KS 10 (1995–2020) NC 6 (2009–2024) OH 6 (1992–2020) TX 5 (1999–2015) ID 5 (1991–2017) NH 5 (1990–2021) NM 5 (1987–2008) VA 5 (1990–2022) ME 5 (1989–2016) OR 4 (1989–2012) IN 4 (1985–2017) GA 4 (1999–2024) WA 4 (1988–2014) CT 3 (2012–2023) AR 3 (1991–2022) AK 3 (1985–2006) MI 3 (2016–2017) DC 2 (1988–2002) TN 2 (1992–2012) AL 2 (1987–1989) MD 2 (2002–2002) MO 2 (2002–2004) CO 2 (1982–1985) SD 2 (1988–1989) SC 2 (2010–2014) WI 2 (1996–1999) KY 2 (2014–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check