Court upholds police warning of suspect rights

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police officers adequately warned a criminal suspect of his legal rights when they told him he had the right to speak to a lawyer before answering any questions.

By a 7-2 vote, the high court ruled the warning that police officers in Tampa, Florida gave to suspect Kevin Powell in 2004 sufficiently informed him that he could have an attorney's assistance during any later questioning.

One officer read Powell a statement that informed him, "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions." Powell later was told he could invoke his rights "at any time you want during this interview."

Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm.

The Florida Supreme Court overturned his conviction and ruled the warning was misleading because it suggested Powell could talk to an attorney only before the police started to question him and did not adequately convey that the lawyer could be present through the interrogation.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, disagreed. She said the warning reasonably conveyed to Powell his right to have an attorney present at all times.

The FBI clearly tells suspects they have the right to consult a lawyer for advice before and during any questioning, she said, adding, "Different words were used in the advice Powell received, but they communicated the same essential message."

In a landmark 1966 ruling, the Supreme Court said criminal suspects must be told by the police that they have the right to remain silent, that any statement may be used as evidence against them and that they have the right to have an attorney present, even if they cannot afford one.

In 2000 the Supreme Court reaffirmed that ruling, which required suspects be told of their rights in a statement widely known as the Miranda warning.

Ginsburg said the court has not dictated the exact words that must be used in the warning.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented. Stevens said the warning at issue did not reasonably convey to Powell his right to have a lawyer with him throughout the interrogation.

(Editing by Alan Elsner)