Opinion ID: 2537084
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Significance of Miranda Rights Minimized and Downplayed

Text: We next review whether the police minimized and downplayed the significance of the Miranda rights once they were given. This factor is important to ensure that a suspect who is provided with a tardy administration of the Miranda warnings truly understands the importance and the effect of the Miranda warnings in light of the problems faced when warnings are delivered midstream. While a careful and thorough administration of Miranda warnings serves to cure the condition that made an unwarned statement inadmissible, Davis, 859 So.2d at 471, where police minimize and downplay the significance of the warnings, the very purpose of Miranda is undermined. See Ramirez, 739 So.2d at 576. As Justice Kennedy explained in Seibert, if a deliberate two-step strategy is employed, then the postwarning statements must be excluded unless curative measures are taken that will ensure that a reasonable person in the suspect's situation would understand the import and effect of the Miranda warning and of the Miranda waiver. Seibert, 542 U.S. at 622, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment) (emphasis supplied). As the Seibert plurality similarly stated, when Miranda warnings are inserted in the midst of coordinated and continuing interrogation, they are likely to mislead and `depriv[e] a [suspect] of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning them.' Id. at 613-14, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (Souter, J., plurality opinion) (first alteration in original) (quoting Moran, 475 U.S. at 424, 106 S.Ct. 1135). For the reasons addressed below, we conclude that the significance of the Miranda rights was minimized and downplayed based on the following facts: (1) prior to providing Ross with his Miranda rights, Detective Waldron minimized the significance of the rights by asserting they were only a matter of procedure; (2) prior to the warnings, the detective lulled Ross into a false sense of security by asserting that he was not arresting him at that time; (3) when Ross indicated a hesitancy in talking, the detective did not stop the interrogation immediately; and (4) rather than informing Ross that his prior incriminating statements could not be used against him, Ross was reminded about his earlier admissions, implying that exercising the right to remain silent would be futile. Immediately prior to providing Ross with his Miranda rights, Detective Waldron stated to Ross: Waldron: There's a couple of things that I need to go over with you real quick. There's a couple of things I discovered, and before we go any further I want to cover this with you, it's just a matter of procedure, um, based on everything we're talking about. Ross: So am I being arrested? Waldron: Nope. At this time you and I are talking, okay? And I would like to talk to you some more. But before I can do that I need to go over this. You're not in handcuffs or anything like that, okay? This strategy, employed after the hours of unwarned interrogation, de-emphasized the significance of the Miranda warnings. By referring to it as a matter of procedure, the detective conveyed the clear impression that the warnings were merely a bureaucratic formality. After making the remarks to Ross, Detective Waldron then showed Ross a written Miranda form and told Ross, I got to read this to you, Blaine. The following colloquy ensued: Waldron: Having these rights in mind you wish to talk to us now? Ross: I don'tI can't tell you anything different.[ [23] ] Waldron: And that's up to you. Ross. So, I'm  Waldron: I can't make your decision for you. Ross: I wantI'd really like to talk to my sister, and since she's not here Waldron: We tried to get in touch with her, get her back here. Ross: I don't know what I'm going to do. I don't know what's going to happen, and Waldron: Well, I'm willing to talk to you if you want. We're trying to get in touch with your sister now[ [24] ] soyou're indicating that you do want to talk to me; correct? Ross: Yes. Waldron: Okay, if you would, please sign right there. After having Ross sign the waiver of Miranda warnings, Detective Waldron then asked Ross about a ski mask that they found in his car with blood on it, and Ross provided an innocent explanation for the ski mask. [25] At that point, the interview turned back to their prior discussion. Detective Waldron reminded Ross of his prior statements as follows: Like I was saying before, earlier, there's a lot of things that happened today, and there's a lot of things that have come at you, and a lot of things that you've admitted to now, that you've kept bottled up inside before, hidden, that you're now having to deal with. I know this is very difficult. I do know that you loved your parents. (Emphasis supplied.) Detective Waldron continued his prior line of questioning that was established before the warnings without any break in the interrogation. He asked many of the same or similar questions. He played on the same themes and employed many of the same techniques, such as stressing that he would not think less of Ross and that he had compassion and understanding because he knew people have tempers and can hurt those they love. [26] Ross initially asserted that he did not believe that he committed the murders and asserted that he did not think he had anything else to say: Ross: Well, I told youyouyou're right, about a lot of things. I, I, I don't think I did this. I don't know(unintelligible) Waldron: I know you say you don't think you did this, but there's the blood on your pants. This wasn't a burglary, somebody who broke into that house. Ross: I don't think I can help you anymore. I don't think I have anything else to say.[ [27] ] In response, Detective Waldron stressed that Ross had to make this right, that the evidence already told a story as to what happened, and that Ross had to make it right by accepting responsibility for his actions. After he brought up the bloody pants again and discussed additional inferences that he could make based on the crime scene, Ross confessed that he killed his parents. As the record establishes, Detective Waldron minimized the significance of the warning when it was given by telling Ross that reading the rights was just a matter of procedure. Further, when Ross asked whether he was going to be arrested, Detective Waldron told him not at that time. However, based on statements made during the evidentiary hearing, Detective Waldron clearly knew he had probable cause to arrest Ross at that time and thus his statements to the contrary were an attempt to lull Ross into a false sense of security. Specifically, Detective Waldron stated that he did not provide Miranda warnings earlier because he did not believe that he had probable cause to arrest Ross, and that once he had probable cause it would have been necessary to administer the Miranda warnings. [28] According to Detective Waldron, it was the discovery of the ski mask that allegedly provided this probable cause and prompted Detective Waldron to advise Ross as to his rights. Yet at this very point during the interrogation, when Ross asked if he was being arrested, Detective Waldron explicitly denied it, telling Ross that he was not being arrested at that time but that they were merely talking. We have previously found troubling such attempts to lull a defendant into a false sense of security. See Ramirez, 739 So.2d at 576-77 (finding that the police had lulled a young defendant into a false sense of security which was calculated to delude him as to his true position when officers denied they were arresting the defendant at the time Miranda warnings were given, despite having ample probable cause). In addition, when Ross first hesitated about his desire to talk to the detective and said he did not wish to talk, Detective Waldron did not immediately stop the interrogation. [29] Instead, the detective continued in his request for Ross to talk with him, letting him know that he understood that the decision belonged to Ross, that he would not make Ross's decision for him, that he was attempting to locate Ross's sister, and that he was still willing to talk to him. Finally, prior to resuming the interrogation relating to the bloody pants, rather than informing Ross that his prior admissions could not be used against him, Detective Waldron did the opposite, reminding Ross about everything that happened that day and that there were a lot of things that [Ross] admitted to now. Detective Waldron continued his prior questioning without any break from the prewarning interrogation, playing on the same themes and using the same tactics as earlier. Based on the tactics used and the fact that Detective Waldron reminded Ross about his admissions immediately after providing him with his Miranda warnings, Ross would likely have had the misimpression that his prior incriminating statements could be used against him. Such a tactic downplayed the significance of the Miranda warnings. We conclude that in contrast to Davis and more similar to Ramirez, the police minimized and downplayed the significance of the Miranda rights once they were finally administered. In Seibert, the plurality stressed the danger of providing Miranda warnings in the middle of an interrogation, particularly after incriminating statements have already been made: Upon hearing warnings only in the aftermath of interrogation and just after making a confession, a suspect would hardly think he had a genuine right to remain silent, let alone persist in so believing once the police began to lead him over the same ground again. A more likely reaction on a suspect's part would be perplexity about the reason for discussing rights at that point, bewilderment being an unpromising frame of mind for knowledgeable decision. What is worse, telling a suspect that anything you say can and will be used against you, without expressly excepting the statement just given, could lead to an entirely reasonable inference that what he has just said will be used, with subsequent silence being of no avail. Seibert, 542 U.S. at 613, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (footnote omitted). Similarly in this case, when Ross was finally given his Miranda warnings, he was told, Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. Ross could have reasonably believed that all of his prior statements would be admissible regardless as to what he said in the future. Thus, providing Miranda warnings at this point to Ross could have misled Ross about the consequences of the decision to abandon his rights. If Ross believed that what he stated in the previous few hours could have been used against him, any attempt to invoke his right to remain silent would have been futile. As we have made clear, any waiver must be the product of free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception ... and must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Ramirez, 739 So.2d at 575 (quoting Moran, 475 U.S. at 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135). Based on all of the circumstances regarding the delay in administering Miranda and the manner of administering Miranda, we conclude that the officers minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings so as to undermine the effectiveness of Miranda.