In another common-sense opinion, SCOTUS declines to get all particular about the specific wording in Miranda warnings, saying that Florida's version is sufficient.

For the opinion, click here.

It is an excellent opinion, but taken with the Joseph opinion issued this week by the CCA, why provide the opportunity for litigation with creative or insufficient warnings? Help make your hard-won convictions final.

In Texas, ask your LEOs to employ only the warnings of art. 38.22, sec. 2(a), and ask the suspect if (a) he understands them, and (b) he waives them! Anything different than that is simply opening the door to absurd, frivolous, or petty (use your own words) litigation like that in Powell this week. (It is troubling that such a case got so far. How could the Florida appellate court misread the English language so badly? The last sentence of the warnings had to mean something!)

[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 02-25-10 at .]

Of course, you can avoid all of these problems by training officers to conduct noncustodial interrogations. By delaying any arrest, you make it much more likely you will get a reliable, admissible confession. Without custody, all the Miranda-related laws and requirements do not apply. Instead, the test is simply whether the confession was voluntary.

And the Confessions book provides details on how to make sure you get a proper noncustodial confession.

"But once the suspect has been out of custody long enough (14 days) to eliminate its coercive effect, there will be nothing to gainby such gamesmanship. Nothing, that is, except the entirely appropriate gain of being able to interrogate a suspect who has made a valid waiver of his Miranda rights."

SCOTUS 2/24/10