State v. Tyrell Garrett McNeely, 162 Idaho 413

Tyrell McNeely was arrested for a misdemeanor probation violation and taken to the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office. Detective Zane Jensen interviewed him about alleged lewd conduct with a minor.
Before questioning, Jensen read Miranda-style warnings; when advising right to counsel he said, “You have the right to have an attorney, … To help you with – stuff,” and told McNeely an attorney would be provided if he could not afford one. McNeely nodded and asked the officer to read the rights again.
McNeely made incriminating statements during the interview. He moved to suppress those statements on Miranda grounds.
The district court granted the motion, finding the warnings failed to adequately inform McNeely he had the right to have counsel present before and during interrogation.
The State appealed, arguing Miranda does not require the more explicit phrasing and that the district court erroneously felt bound by Ninth Circuit precedent. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the suppression order and overruled State v. Ross.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Miranda warning given adequately informed suspect of right to have counsel present before and during interrogation	Warnings were adequate; Miranda does not require explicit phrasing that counsel be present during interrogation	Warning was inadequate; officer failed to convey right to presence of counsel before and during questioning	Warning was inadequate; officer did not reasonably convey the right to have counsel present during questioning
Whether district court erred by relying on Ninth Circuit precedent	District court should not be bound by Ninth Circuit rule (Noti)	District court relied on persuasive Ninth Circuit authority; reasoning is sound	State courts not bound by circuit precedent, but Ninth Circuit authority is persuasive; district court erred if it thought itself compelled, but error non-dispositive
Whether earlier Idaho precedent (State v. Ross) controls	Ross supports adequacy of similar warnings; should uphold statements	Ross is outdated given subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions	Ross is overruled; its warnings are insufficient under modern Miranda jurisprudence
Proper remedy for inadequate Miranda warnings	Admit statements because warnings were sufficient	Suppress statements as fruit of inadequate warnings	Suppress statements; affirm district court order

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes custodial-interrogation warnings including right to have counsel present)
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (warnings upheld that referred to right to the advice and presence of a lawyer)
Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (2010) (clarifies adequacy test: warnings must reasonably convey Miranda rights)
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981) (courts need not examine warning phrasing as if construing a will; focus is whether warnings reasonably convey rights)
United States v. Noti, 731 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1984) (Ninth Circuit precedent regarding necessity of advising right to counsel presence during interrogation)
State v. Ross, 92 Idaho 709 (Idaho 1968) (earlier Idaho case holding similar warnings adequate; overruled by this opinion)