Police Questioning of Suspects: The Miranda Rule

When do the police have to read you your "rights?" We've all heard about the Miranda Rule, but most people don't really understand what it's for, who it protects and when police have to "Mirandize" a suspect. See the articles below to get informed on the Miranda Rule.

Questioning Suspects in Custody: The Miranda Rule

When police officers make an arrest, they commonly interrogate (question) the arrestee. Usually they are trying to strengthen the prosecution’s case by getting the arrestee to provide evidence of guilt. An interrogation may have other purposes as well, such as developing leads to additional suspects. Your Constitutional Rights

By voluntarily answering police questions after arrest, a suspect gives up two rights granted by the U.S. Constitution:

• the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and
• the Sixth Amendment right to have a lawyer present during the questioning.
/ul>

Although people are entitled to voluntarily give up these and other rights, the courts have long recognized that voluntariness depends on knowledge and free will, and that people questioned by the police while they are in custody frequently have neither.

Your Miranda Rights

To remedy this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) that information obtained by police officers through the questioning of a suspect in police custody may be admitted as evidence at trial only if the questioning was preceded by certain cautions known collectively as a “Miranda warning.” Accordingly, police officers usually begin their questioning of a person in custody by first making the following statements:

1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning.
4. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
5. If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time.

If a suspect is in police custody, it doesn’t matter whether the interrogation takes place in a jail or at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or in the middle of an open field. Other than routine automobile stops and brief on-the-street detentions, once a police officer deprives a suspect of freedom of action in any way, the suspect is in police custody and Miranda is activated.

Miranda Rights: Where They Came From, What They Sound Like

Most people are familiar with the term “Miranda rights” after seeing countless cops on TV reading criminal suspects their rights. The Miranda warning was named after the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that persons detained by police must be told of their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination during police interrogation and their Sixth Amendment right to counsel. If police do question a detainee without giving a Miranda warning, anything the person says will usually be inadmissible in court.

History of the Miranda Warning

The Miranda warning came after the U.S. Supreme Court found that the rights of Ernesto Miranda were violated following his arrest in 1963. After being questioned by police for two hours, Miranda confessed to kidnapping and raping an 18-year old woman. He was never offered legal counsel. Based on his confession, he was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and ruled that because Miranda had not been advised of his constitutional rights, the confession should not have been used as evidence at his trial. The Court overturned Miranda’s conviction in its landmark ruling.

During Miranda’s second trial, which excluded his confession, he was convicted again and sent to prison.

How the Miranda Warning Works

Once an individual has been detained and before police begin questioning, the police must read the detained person a Miranda warning. While the Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used, here is a common form of the warning:

“You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you wish to have an attorney and cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you at no cost. Do you understand these rights that have been read to you?”

Sometimes police ask a detainee to sign a statement acknowledging that he or she has heard the warning and understands it.

If someone being detained by police asks for an attorney, the police must cease interrogation until legal counsel is present, respecting the individual’s constitutional right to remain silent.

What Is Detention?

Law enforcement officers are required to give Miranda warnings only when they have someone in custody or the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would conclude that he is not free to walk away. If you talk freely to the police without being in custody, and you are free to walk away, any incriminating information you offer could be used in court.

While police custody (arrest) is usually clear enouth, it’s not always obvious whether someone is free to leave. Police often question people before they actually arrest them. Generally, you are considered to be at liberty to leave if a reasonable person in the same circumstances would not feel free to leave. It doesn’t matter whether you are in an interview room in a police station, at a crime scene, or in your front yard.

Age can also play a role. In a case involving a 13-year-old who was pulled out of class and questioned by police and school administrators, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that any “reasonable person” analysis should take into account a juvenile suspect’s age. A child, the Court stated, would feel less free to leave a school conference room than an adult would. (J.D.B. v. North Carolina, June 2011.)

Invoking Miranda Rights If You’re Questioned

If the police want to question you about a crime, the first thing you should say is, “I want an attorney.” Whether or not you are guilty of any wrongdoing or have information about the crime, you’re better off not saying a thing until a lawyer is present to safeguard your constitutional rights.

The police are required to stop questioning you once you, at any time, invoke your constitutional right to remain silent. You should not, however, just refuse to answer questions; you must state clearly that you intend to exercise your right to remain silent. Only when you unambiguously invoke your right to remain silent must the police end their questioning. (Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (2010).)

Phone Conversations with the Police May Not Be Protected Under Miranda

Miranda v. Arizona requires the police to inform a suspect of his Miranda rights before a custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogation includes not only questioning during or after an arrest, but in a situation in which most people would conclude that they are not free to leave. Talking on the phone to the police may not qualify as custodial interrogation.

The case of State v. Hernandez in New Mexico

Whether talking to the police on the phone would trigger the duty to give Miranda rights arose in New Mexico in State v. Hernandez. The defendant made a series of threatening phone calls to a home, accompanied by gunshots. The police were called. Upon arrival, an officer answered two of the phone calls that allegedly came from the shooter. The defendant’s phone number was identified by caller ID. The caller conversed with the officer, revealing his name and identifying himself as the shooter.

At trial, the defendant’s attorneys successfully suppressed his statements under Miranda v. Arizona. The appellate court found that Hernandez was not in custody, was free to stop the conversation, nor was he under interrogation. He voluntarily initiated the phone call. He voluntarily engaged in the conversation. Throughout the call, he was free to hang up the phone.

Think Twice Before Talking on the Phone

The lesson from State v. Hernandez, at least in New Mexico, is this: Don’t make the call, don’t accept the call. If you must make a call and you feel compelled to talk, call an attorney. As long as it's clear that your're calling in order to obtain legal advice, and you do it in circumstances that are reasonably sure to result in a private conversation, your conversation will be confidential.