Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

Generally, Miranda warnings (right to remain silent) are not required where the individual makes statements during a consensual encounter. They are required only where the defendant is in custody and under interrogation. If either element is missing, the warnings are not required.
In Davis, the Court reiterated the test for determining whether one is in custody for purposes of Miranda. The test is whether there is a “restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” Further, “[t]he proper inquiry is not the unarticulated plan of the police, but rather how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have perceived the situation.”
These exact standards have been applied to traffic stops by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Bruder, Berkemer v. McCarty, and the Florida Supreme Court in Allred v. State. These cases stand for the proposition that Miranda warnings need not be given for an ordinary traffic stop until the defendant is subjected to circumstances that are the functional equivalent of a formal arrest. This is so, because such stops do not expose the defendant to a coercive environment warranting Miranda rights advisement. In making that determination, the court must apply the same reasonable person test described above in Davis.
The uncommunicative subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant in the determination of a reasonable person's understanding of his situation. Similarly, whether or not the defendant is the focus of the investigation is irrelevant in that determination.

If you have been arrested in Fort Lauderdale, contact the criminal defense attorneys of William Moore, P.A. We will be happy to discuss the effect that an individual's right to remain silent has on any particular case.

If you have been arrested for a crime in Broward County and subsequently pled guilty or no-contest, you may have been placed on probation. The attorneys at our office want to remind you of the importance of filing monthly reports if ordered to do so.

The failure to file monthly reports is a sufficient basis to revoke probation or community control. Indeed, the failure to file even a single monthly report may, in certain circumstances, justify revocation if such failure is willful and substantial and supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The reason is that supervision reports are not merely technical niceties and the failure to report is a serious violation of the privilege of supervision. Criminal lawyers advise that the Florida Supreme Court has rejected “any per se rule that the failure to file a single report may never justify revocation.” The Court reasoned that “Probation reports are not merely technical niceties and the failure to report is a serious violation of the privilege of probation. . . . Failure to enforce the reporting requirements undermines the system and the practical consequence is no control, no supervision, and no probation.” A sufficient basis for revocation on this ground is not established, for example, where the probationer or community controlee files two late reports to his or her probation or community control officer, one of which is five days late and the other one day late and both of which are accepted.

If you have been arrested and seek the advice of a criminal defense attorney, contact any of the numbers listed above. For Palm Beach County, contact attorney Andrew Alitowski.
For information on DUI and related offenses, please review Broward DUI.