Polk Law Blog

The Thomas William Rigterink murder case has generated some press lately because it has been appealed all the way up the the U.S. Supreme Court.  The case involves the 2003 murders of two people in Polk County. Rigterink was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. More information about the murders and the history of the case is easy to find.

I would like to focus instead on the narrow issue that is the current focus of the case: Rigterink’s confession. I was taken aback when I found out what the issue on appeal is. My initial reaction was, “Wow, someone should have thought of that.”

Everyone who has ever watched television knows that you have to read an arrestee his Miranda rights at the time of arrest. Miranda rights are required and so named because of the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. The case is legendary, not only for its landmark ruling, but also for the pain it causes law students. It is one of the longest and most complex opinions that law students study. It requires that arrestees be informed of a number of different rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. What isn’t clear from the opinion is exactly how these rights need to be stated. Surprisingly, different law enforcement agencies use hundreds of different versions of the warning:

Here is what the Miranda form Rigterink signed said:

“I do hereby understand that (1) I have the right to remain silent (2) Anything I say can and will be used against me in court (3) I have the right to have an attorney present prior to questioning (4) If I cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to represent me by the court.”

He signed the form, and then made a recorded statement confessing to the crime. So what’s the problem? What could be more clear about the form? Why is it on appeal? Well… in the form Rigerink signed, he was informed of the right to have an attorney prior to questioning, but he was not specifically told that he had the right to counsel during his interrogation. Oops.  (You: you mean THAT’s what this is all about? Me: yep.)

If a Miranda warning is improper, usually the appropriate remedy is to “suppress” the confession, which means to not allow it to be used at trial. But this is not always the case. Sometimes, for example, the court may decide that suppression is not necessary because there was no police misconduct or because the defendant was not in custody (i.e. he was there on his own accord and was free to leave at any time). The trial court in Rigterink’s case decided not to suppress the confession, and the jury was able to see it.

From this, at least three interesting legal questions have arisen which are still pending:

First, note that you are only required to read Miranda warnings to a defendant who is in “custody.” Was Rigertink truly in “custody” at the time of his interview, or was he there voluntarily? If he was there voluntarily, then the conviction should stick.

Second, assuming he was in custody, was the Miranda warning sufficient to advise him of his rights? If it was, then the conviction should stick.

Third, assuming the Miranda warning was not sufficient, is suppression the appropriate remedy? If it is not, then the conviction should stick.

If the answers turn out different to any of the above questions, Mr. Rigterink may get a new trial.

Legally, from someone who only has the benefit of reading a tiny bit about this case, it seems like Miranda pretty clearly requires the Defendant to be informed of his right to counsel during questioning. While this seems like a very technical problem, technicalities are important because they make the system safe to navigate for the rest of us. On the other hand, the circumstances under which Mr. Rigterink ended up at the police station lends some credence to to first issue described above. At leat initially, he was not in “custody” and was speaking to law enforcement voluntarily. The question is whether at some point it became a “custodial” interview because of how the deputies confronted him with the evidence against him.

Where do we go from here?

I certainly hope that the Polk County Sheriff’s Office has updated its Miranda form to include language advising questionees of their right to have counsel present during questioning. To me, this seems like an issue that someone should have thought of a long time ago.  To be fair to whomever drafted that Miranda warning, I sure am glad I have never been tasked with writing a Miranda warning that is clear, easy to understand even for uneducated people, fully informative of rights, and succinct enough to be practical. The caselaw on Miranda is truly a disaster and such a form may not be possible.

If you are interested in learning more, I suggest starting with the State of Florida’s initial Application for Stay filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, which I obtained via a public records request. It is a very good succinct summary. If you want to know more about the facts, the Florida Supreme Court opinion which is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court has a good bit of detail.

Edit: correcting a few typos

Update: To follow the case, see the Supreme Court Docket.