When is Post-Miranda Evidence Admissible in Florida?

April 1, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

If someone is arrested and interrogated by law enforcement, they may make statements about the existence and location of evidence that can be used against them in court. This can be especially harmful to their defense if the evidence in question, such as a weapon, is discovered by police as a result of that statement. 

Even if someone does not directly confess to the crime, statements that lead to the discovery of additional evidence can greatly benefit the prosecution’s case. But under certain circumstances, this evidence can be successfully excluded from ever being shown at trial. This blog will explore when “post-Miranda” evidence can and cannot be used against someone in a court of law.

For someone to waive their Miranda rights, they must do so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). These include the right to remain silent, and the right to have an attorney during questioning. A suspect must also be informed that anything they say during the interrogation can and will be used against them in court. 

While Miranda is often raised in discussions surrounding the admissibility of confessions, it is just as applicable in conversations about whether evidence discovered as a result of a suspect’s statements will be admissible at trial. For post-Miranda evidence to be considered admissible, two conditions must be met:

• The suspect must have been properly informed of their Miranda rights
• The person being interrogated must have knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived their Miranda rights before making the statement that led to the evidence’s discovery

Evidence of police intimidation, cajoling, or trickery in an effort to get a suspect to waive their Miranda rights invalidates any subsequent waiver. Dooley v. State, 743 So.2d 65, 68 (Fla 4th DCA 1999). If officers use such tactics, and someone makes a statement during interrogation that leads to the discovery of additional evidence, that evidence will not be admissible in court. 

Post-Miranda evidence is also inadmissible when officers do any of the following:

• Withhold information, such as telling someone they have a right to remain silent but not informing them of their right to have an attorney present during questioning 
• Threatens someone with consequences, such as additional charges or jail time, if they invoke their rights
• Continue to interrogate a suspect who requests a lawyer
• Ignore a suspect’s physical condition, such as that person being under the influence of heavy medication after surgery, that clearly impairs their ability to validly waive their rights

The Supreme Court has held that when a suspect tells officers he “already knows his rights” before officers finish reading a Miranda warning, then discloses the location of evidence, the evidence recovered as a result of that statement is admissible. This is true even if the officers never completed the warning after the statement was made. However, the statement disclosing the evidence’s location is inadmissible. United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004)

Important: Under Miranda, someone may invoke their rights at any time during questioning. They do not permanently waive their rights at the beginning if they decide to speak with officers. Statements made after someone invokes their rights, including disclosures about the location of evidence, are inadmissible in court if police continue to question them without counsel. The evidence itself is also inadmissible if it is recovered as a direct result of those statements.

There are two main exceptions that allow evidence from a suspect’s statements to be admitted, even if a Miranda warning was given incorrectly or not given at all. The first is the public safety exception, as outlined in New York v. Quarles. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). 

In Quarles, a police officer entered a supermarket to pursue an active shooter. When he found the suspect, he asked where his gun was and seized it before arresting him and reading his Miranda rights. The court ruled that the recovered gun was admissible as evidence, because even though Quarles had not yet been read his Miranda rights, there was an immediate threat to public safety. 

The second exception is the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Even if a suspect did not validly waive their Miranda rights, evidence discovered as a result of a suspect’s statements may still be admissible if it would have “inevitably” been found by police anyway. The U.S. Supreme Court outlined a two-step test for inevitable discovery in Nix v. Williams (1984):

• Lawful and Independent Means: The prosecution must show that law enforcement had an ongoing, independent investigation or legal procedure that would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence
• Reasonable Probability of Discovery: There must be a high likelihood (not just speculation) that the evidence would have been found through lawful means, even without the unconstitutional action

If post-Miranda evidence is obtained due to a suspect’s inadmissible statement, and does not fall under either the public safety or inevitable discovery exceptions, a defendant can motion for this to be excluded from trial. This could heavily influence the outcome of their case. 

If someone is concerned that their Miranda waiver was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, or that evidence against them was improperly obtained, it is crucial to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share