In the case of Florida v. Kevin Dewayne Powell in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers do not need to explicitly inform a suspect about his right to have an attorney present during questioning, as long as they generally advise him of his Miranda rights (the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney). The case arose when Powell was arrested for illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Before interrogation, he was informed of his rights but not specifically told he could have an attorney present during questioning. He confessed and was subsequently convicted based on this confession. On appeal, Powell argued that because he wasn't fully advised of his rights under Miranda v Arizona (1966), his confession should be suppressed. However, the Supreme Court disagreed stating that warnings were adequate if they reasonably conveyed a suspect's rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Florida v. Kevin Dewayne Powell, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was a departure from Miranda precedent and could potentially mislead suspects about their rights during police interrogations. He contended that informing a suspect of his right to consult with an attorney before questioning does not necessarily imply he has the right to have an attorney present during questioning. The distinction is crucial because it affects how freely a suspect might speak without legal counsel present. Furthermore, Stevens pointed out inconsistencies in Florida’s standard warning compared to federal standards and those used by other states, which explicitly state this right. He expressed concern over potential confusion among law enforcement agencies regarding what constitutes adequate Miranda warnings if such variations were allowed.