court of appeal

Officers Didn’t Read Me My Miranda Rights!

Published on: May 31, 2024 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Everybody has heard of Miranda rights, but few actually understand what they are and what they do. You may be surprised to learn that police officers do not always have to read you your Miranda rights when they are questioning or even arresting you? Sounds crazy, but it’s true.

The name “Miranda” came from the landmark United States Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. The issue was whether police officers had to advise a person of his or her Constitutional rights before questioning them about a crime. What constitutional rights? The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides the constitutional right against self-incrimination. In other words, the government can’t make you tell them anything that may incriminate you. And the person must be told that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney to discuss the Fifth Amendment right. So, out of the Miranda case, came the Miranda rights or warnings that we all have become accustomed to when someone is arrested.

miranda rule
But Miranda rights only relate to custodial interrogation and the right against self incrimination. So, if you don’t incriminate yourself, no Miranda rights are required. And law enforcement must only advise you of your Miranda rights before interrogating you in a custodial setting. Whether a person is in custody depends on what a reasonable person in the person’s place would believe that they were in custody. So if officers don’t interrogate you or it’s not in a custodial setting, then they don’t have to read you your rights.

What if the State doesn’t give me a speedy trial?

Published on: February 12, 2024 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Close-up of the U.S. Constitution Every person charged with a crime in the United States is entitled to a speedy trial. This is a federal constitutional right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states, [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” The State of Florida also made this a state constitutional right in Section 16 of the Florida Constitution, which states that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall, upon demand…shall have the right…to have a speedy and public trial…

The Florida Supreme Court adopted Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, which provides that every person charged with a crime be brought to trial on a misdemeanor within 90 days of arrest on a misdemeanor and within 175 days of arrest on a felony. The Rule states that the time period commences when the person is taken into custody, which is defined as “when the person is arrested as a result of the conduct or criminal episode that gave rise to the crime charged;” There are exceptions to these timeframes and the most common exception is when the person charged waives their right to a speedy trial. There are valid reasons to waive that right. Basically, a person is not entitled to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, a person charged with a crime is going to need time to investigate the case, to potentially take depositions, to conduct legal research, to file motions and have motion hearings, and to otherwise conduct pretrial negotiations and/or litigation. So, if a person demands a speedy trial, that person is necessarily not going to have additional time to prepare a defense. So, in most cases, a person charged is going to move to continue the case to allow for preparation. However, what happens when the time has expired before the person has waived his or her right to a speedy trial?

In State v. Williams, Ms. Williams was arrested on October 8, 1999. The State filed formal charges on May 3, 2000, which was 206 days after her arrest. Ms. Williams filed a motion for discharge alleging that the State failed to bring her to trial within the time allowed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191. Under subsection (p)(3), the defendant can file a notice of expiration of speedy trial and then the trial court must conduct a hearing within five days and set the case for trial within 10 days. This is referred to as the “recapture period.” So, the trial judge treated the motion for discharge as a notice of expiration of speedy trial and held a hearing and scheduled the case for trial within 10 days. Ms. Williams objected, arguing that she should have been discharged because the time frame had expired.

When Can a Police Officer Make an Arrest on a Misdemeanor Without a Warrant in Florida?

Published on: January 22, 2024 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Police officers can’t simply walk up to any citizen and detain or arrest that person. There must be reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the person has, is, or is committing a crime in order to detain or arrest them.

Police-Officer-with-Arrest-Warrant-illustration-300x261
Typically, if a police officer wants to make an arrest, they must seek an arrest warrant. In order to obtain an arrest warrant, the officer must establish to a judge that there is probable cause that a crime occurred and that the defendant committed the crime. The judge will then issue an arrest warrant if the judge determines there is probable cause exists.

However, a police officer does not always have to obtain an arrest warrant in order to make an arrest. There are exceptions to the arrest warrant requirement. Florida Statute §901.15 lays out when an officer can make an arrest without an arrest warrant. There are many exceptions to the arrest warrant requirement. For example, an officer doesn’t need a warrant to arrest a person for driving under the influence. The officer can simply make the arrest once observing all of the elements of the offense.