Hardly any case is as famous and
well known among legal scholars and laymen alike as Miranda v Arizona. It was
a landmark case that would forever re-write the criminal procedure textbooks
and permanently change police interrogation techniques. The Supreme Court
recognized that criminal suspects were entitled to be advised of certain rights
if a particular set of criteria existed. Perhaps no other case has caused quite
as much confusion among the general public as to when the “rights” kick in and
what the consequences are if not properly administered. With all the post-Miranda cases, it would literally take
volumes as thick as any encyclopedia set to explain all the nuances of the
warnings. What this article is about is providing the public with a general overview
as to when the “warnings” are required and when they may not be.
In order for a suspect to be
entitled to receive the Miranda Warnings, three prongs of criteria must be met.
There must be: 1) Police 2) Custodial 3) Interrogation. Sounds simple enough
doesn’t it? The amount of confusion, controversy, and legal debates that remain
to this day say otherwise. Let’s take them step by step.
1. Police
The person doing the questioning
must either be a police officer or a known agent of the police. What about confessions made to undercover
police officers or paid informants? That requires a different analysis since
they are not “known” to be agents to the suspect at the time of the
questioning. Under those situations, the confession has to be “voluntary” and
not “coerced.” In other words, as long as the undercover officer didn’t force
you, threaten you, or otherwise make you give an incriminating statement that
was not made of your own free will, the statement will be allowed in as
evidence.
Caveat: Be mindful of confessions
made to “bunkies” or cellmates in jail. They are not agents of the police and
any confessions or incriminating statements made to them can be used against
you!
2. Custodial
For Miranda to kick in, you need
to be in police “custody.” But what does that mean exactly? The test that
generally seems to be used is: would a reasonable person under the
circumstances feel free to leave? A lot of this will depend on where the
interrogation is taking place. If it is taking place in the suspect’s home,
place of business, public place, etc. the courts usually lean towards
concluding that is not police custody (although certain factors could indicate otherwise). In these incidents, it is the
suspect and not the police that have the home field advantage. The theory goes
that the suspect would feel comfortable either refusing to answer questions or
to just tell the police to “get lost.” After all, it’s your home, your castle
and you make the rules right? Not necessarily true, but the courts will often
see it that way.
On the other hand, if the
interrogation is taking place at the police station, then clearly it is the
police that have the upper hand. Other factors include: was the suspect told
that he could not leave or was he told that he had to answer the questions? If
so, the custody argument is now easier to make since the suspect would not feel
free to not answer the questions or leave, even if it is in the suspect’s home.
A lot of it just depends on the surrounding factors of the situation. This is
what the law refers to as the “totality of the circumstances.”
3. Interrogation
The police actually have to be
questioning you or otherwise trying to illicit potentially incriminating
statements from you. Routine booking questions such as your name, address, etc.
are not considered to be incriminating and therefore Miranda does not apply.
The courts have held that statements have to be “testimonial” in order for
Miranda to be activated.
What does “testimonial” mean? Perhaps
it’s easier to discuss what isn’t testimonial:
fingerprints, DNA samples, statements given in police lineups, voice exemplars.
The suspect must intend to communicate either a fact or belief in order to be
testimonial. Usually it only applies to audible statements, but sometimes
non-verbal communication can be testimonial, such as nodding the head.
Public Safety Exception
There is an exception to Miranda
known as the Public Safety Exception. It is a narrow, case-by-case
determinative exception so there is no bright-line rule other than the police
do not have to give you Miranda warnings if there is an ongoing threat to the
public’s safety.
Voluntary Statements
Miranda does not apply to
statements that the suspect gives on his own volition, either before or after
the Miranda warnings have been given. Many suspects have operated under the
mistaken belief (to their own detriment) that if they give incriminating
statements before the officer has had an opportunity to offer the Miranda
warnings, the statements will be kicked out. Not true! So don’t offer any such
statements to the police. Exercise your right to remain silent.
Miranda Myths
The police have to give me Miranda Warnings whenever I’m arrested—Not
true! The police can arrest you and not be required to give you Miranda
warnings. They would only have to Mirandize you if they wish to interrogate you
or ask you incriminating questions. Otherwise, they don’t have to Mirandize
you.
If the police don’t read you your Miranda Warnings, they have to let
you go and drop all charges—Not true! Remember, Miranda only applies to statements. The police can still have
enough evidence to arrest and prosecute you even if they can’t use your
confession against you.
If the police trick me into giving an incriminating answer, it can’t be
used against me—Not necessarily. The police cannot force you or “coerce”
you into giving confessions or incriminating statements. That doesn’t mean that
they can’t lie or otherwise deceive you into giving incriminating statements. “Strategic
trickery” is often employed by the police as an interrogation tactic. Police
are not required to be Boy Scouts.
If I ask an undercover agent if he is a police officer he has to tell
me the truth—Not true! Police could never effectively operate undercover or
perform string operations if that were the case. Yes, police can lie.
How to Invoke Your Right to Remain Silent
You have a constitutional right
to remain silent and not incriminate yourself. Exercise it! But make sure that
you do it in an unequivocal manner so the police cannot misinterpret it. Avoid
wishy-washy phrases like, “I’ll think about it,” “Maybe,” “I don’t know yet.”
Make sure you state something like the following: “I am invoking my right to
remain silent. I will not answer anymore questions until I have talked to a
lawyer.”
Remember, you always have the
right not to talk to the police. The police can never force you to answer any
other their questions.
