Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals gave federal prosecutors in Mississippi a second chance to prove that a defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights during a police interview. In United States v. Lexus Sanchez Weaver, officers brought the defendant to the station after executing a search warrant tied to a series of purchases for controlled substances. Although officers advised Weaver of his Miranda rights, they did not read him the portion of the form stating that he was waiving those rights. He signed it and then spent roughly 90 minutes answering questions.
Did he implicitly waive his Miranda rights? Can his answers be used against him in court? Here’s what you should know.
Officers Used a Confidential Informant to Buy Crack From Weaver
In March 2024, law enforcement officers showed up at Weaver’s home in Starkville, Mississippi. They had a warrant they’d obtained after using a confidential informant to conduct a series of three controlled drug buys. The officers alleged that an informant they trusted had purchased crack from Weaver while they monitored.
To obtain the warrant, Officer Garrett Mittan drafted a supporting affidavit detailing the drug buys and held a FaceTime call with Municipal Court Judge Brian Kelley. There’s no record as to whether Judge Kelley put Mittan under oath during the FaceTime call, but there is a record of the text message Mittan received approving the warrant.
When police officers executed the search warrant, they recovered lots of things — methamphetamine, cocaine, firearms, money, and cellphones. They arrested Weaver and brought him down to the station for questioning.
At the Police Station, Nobody Mentioned the “Waiver of Rights” Section of a Miranda Form
Weaver’s interview was captured on video. Officer Mittan and another officer started telling Weaver that they wanted to talk about what happened at his home. Mittan gave Weaver a form with Miranda rights printed on it. He read through the rights while pointing to each one. Then, he made Weaver sign the form.
Below the list of Miranda rights, however, was a section labeled “Waiver of Rights. According to the appeal, it said, “I (have read) or (had read to me) this statement of my rights and I understand what my rights are. I am willing to make a statement and answer questions. I do not want a lawyer at this time. I understand and know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used against me.”
Officer Mittan didn’t read this section out loud. He didn’t mention it at all. And in the video of the interview, it looks like Weaver didn’t read it before signing.
Weaver apparently told the officers a lot of things over the next hour and a half. He was eventually indicted on five counts involving drug trafficking and firearm possession.
Weaver Moved to Suppress The Evidence From the Search and His Statements to Police
Weaver moved to suppress the evidence against him. He said that the warrant was invalid, and the failure to read the Waiver of Rights was a trick to get him to sign and talk. At the suppression hearing, the district court granted Weaver’s motion. The government then appealed, and the case was heard by a Fifth Circuit panel.
The Fifth Circuit’s panel ruled that the warrant that had been obtained was valid. They agreed that Weaver’s signature on the Miranda rights form wasn’t valid — that Weaver thought what he was signing was an acknowledgment that he’d been read his rights and not a waiver of those rights.
Despite acknowledging the deceptive tactic, the 5th Circuit declined to rule on whether Weaver implicitly waived his rights by continuing to speak with the police after they misled him. The panel emphasized that even if the written waiver was invalid, Weaver might have implicitly waived his rights by continuing to speak with officers after receiving Miranda warnings, and faulted the district court for not performing that fact-intensive implied-waiver analysis. Because of this, the appellate court remanded the case to the federal trial court to determine whether Weaver implicitly waived his Miranda rights and to provide instructions for that court.
What Does It Mean to Implicitly Waive Your Rights?
Miranda rights can be waived in several ways at any point during questioning. A person can explicitly waive their rights by signing them away. They can also implicitly waive their Miranda rights by making incriminating statements during a police interrogation, even after they’ve been told that they have the right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney.
U.S. Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the opinion that "even if Weaver's signed waiver was invalid, he can still implicitly waive his Miranda rights." She added, "The district court neglected to perform an implied waiver analysis, which depends on consideration of all the relevant circumstances of the interview. Given its fact-specific nature, this court declines to be the first to do so."
The United States Supreme Court has addressed implied waivers of Miranda rights in North Carolina v. Butler. That case concerned Willie Thomas Butler, a fugitive caught in New York City after robbing a North Carolina gas station and shooting its attendant. The FBI agent told Butler about his Miranda rights. At the FBI office, Butler told the FBI that there was no way he’d ever sign the Miranda waiver, but that he would talk with the FBI.
The Supreme Court said that Butler had waived his constitutional rights implicitly and that the standard for figuring out whether someone has waived their rights is weighing the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation.
What will this mean for Weaver? Prosecutors will get a second chance to introduce Weaver’s statements, and it’ll be up to the district court as to whether the defendant’s statements can be used against him.
Related Resources
- The Supreme Court Rules on How Clear Miranda Warnings Must Be (FindLaw’s Legal Commentary)
- Miranda Rights 101: Your Rights While Being Questioned, Detained, or Arrested by Police (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
