Florida v. Powell
| Florida v. Powell | |
|---|---|
| Argued December 7, 2009 Decided February 23, 2010 | |
| Full case name | Florida v. Powell |
| Docket no. | 08-1157 |
| Citations | 559 U.S. 50 (more) |
| Questions presented | |
| 1. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to decide a case that involved, in part, provisions of the Florida Constitution? 2. Is a Miranda warning valid if it advises a suspect of his right to consult an attorney "before questioning" and his right to consult a lawyer "at any time during the questioning", but not his right to the physical presence of an attorney during questioning? | |
| Holding | |
| 1. In cases where federal law appears to control a state court's jurisdiction, the Supreme Court retains jurisdiction. 2. The warning given to the defendant in this case was adequate, as it reasonably conveyed to him his rights as required by Miranda. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor; Breyer (Part II) |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Breyer (Part II) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV | |
Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (2010), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the language requirements for Miranda warnings. In the case, a suspect was advised of his right to consult with an attorney before questioning, as well as his right to consult with an attorney at any time during questioning. However, he was not advised of his right to the physical presence of an attorney during questioning.