The Court Hired Me A Lawyer - Can Police Still Question Me?
For those of you who don't know, the police have to read you your "rights" when you are in "custody", and being "interrogated". These are legal terms of art that are pretty well defined in Florida and Federal cases, but the point is that in those situations the police have to say: "You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be held against you; you have the right to an attorney; if you can't afford one, one will be appointed to you by the Court." (the infamous Miranda warnings). If those words are not spoken, any confession you give the police could be thrown out of Court.
What if my brother hired a lawyer for me and I didn't know about it? Too bad. He can be in the police station lobby asking to talk to you while your under the hot lights, and as long as you agreed to talk (after your rights were read to you), it doesn't matter! See, Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986).
But wait - what if I was arrested, came before a judge the next morning, and he told me that the Public Defender was "appointed" to my case...without me asking? Can the police come question me the next day? YES, according to a new U.S. Supreme Court case, Montejo v. Louisiana, 566 U.S. ___ (2009).
If you've done your homework you may be asking: how can that be if the right to a lawyer is protected under the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? And how can that be, if the Miranda warnings even say I have the right to a lawyer, and I just had one appointed to me (i.e., I hired a free lawyer compliments of the judge)? Good questions. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court thinks that even if the State just hired a lawyer for you, (if you didn't ask for one), the police can still come visit you, read you your rights, and if you say "I'll talk", you've legally waived those rights...even without your lawyer being there.
Both sides of the legal argument in this case are actually very convincing. However, it's harder to believe the prevailing opinion in this case after you read a funny point the Court makes in support of its decision. Justice Scalia essentially says that the law set out in the Miranda and Edwards cases provides enough protection of Constitutional rights so that a person won't be illegally coerced by police, even after that government lawyer has been appointed by the judge. He then briefly discusses situations when a person is out of jail and states: "when a defendant is not in custody, he is in control, and need only shut his door or walk away to avoid police badgering."
I'm sure all of you who have had the joy of dealing with the police know how simple and true that is, right?
