A 'quite fantastic' Miranda challenge

Predicting the outcome of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court is fairly risky, but in oral arguments Monday involving the interrogation of a 10-time felon by Tampa police, reporters were quick to offer their judgment that the Miranda warnings provided the suspect here will be judged inadequate.

We weren't in the courtroom, but a reading of transcripts of the hearing is far less conclusive. While it is obvious that at least one justice - Stephen Breyer - believes the statement of Miranda rights once used by the Tampa Police Department doesn't measure up, it is not clear that a majority of his eight colleagues feels the same way.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled last year that the police warnings given Kevin Dewayne Powell, convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon on the street for his protection. were not constitutionally sufficient.

Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that reads:

"You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

According to Florida's high court, the statement did not make it clear to Powell that he was entitled to a lawyer before and during questioning by authorities. The decision should be reversed. The warnings listed in the form properly convey Miranda rights.

Perhaps the wording could have been improved, but we don't buy Powell's argument that he didn't understand he could have a lawyer present at all times.

Quite apart from the fact it is hard to believe that a man with as long a record as Powell hasn't heard these rights before, he said he understood them.

The Florida Supreme Court went out of its way to avoid the plain meaning of the standard form and instead parsed words in favor of the defendant.

"This is angels dancing on the head of a pin," Justice Antonin Scalia told Powell's lawyer. "You want us to believe that your client, who decided to talk, even though he was told he could consult an attorney before any question was asked, and he could consult an attorney at any time during the interview, and he went ahead and confessed - you are saying, oh, if he had only known. Oh, if I knew that I could have an attorney present during the interview, well, that would have been a different kettle of fish and I would never have confessed. I mean, doesn't that seem to you quite fantastic?"

Fantastic and ridiculous.

No suspect should be denied his rights, but if the Florida court's opinion is adopted, a number of notorious cases here could hang in the balance. The court need only look at the plain language of the form to know it is abundantly sufficient to protect the rights of the accused.