Miranda and the 5th Amendment

Equivalent Standard Test

Objective; the court will look at what the police knew or reasonably should have known at the relevant time, based in part on their reasonable assessment of the perceptions of the suspect. This includes any actions or words on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Prison

An inmate who was interrogated at the prison where he was under long term confinement, was not in custody for purposes of Miranda. A prisoner serving a lengthy sentence is not likely to be shocked or overwhelmed by being moved from one room in the prison to another room in the prison so the police can ask him questions. He knows the police cannot release him or reward him for his cooperation - used to the coercive pressure.

Miranda Safeguards

An interrogated person in custody must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right: to remain silent anything he says can be used against him in the court of law he has the right to the presence of an attorney - if he cannot afford one, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation - after warning are given, he may knowingly waive his rights. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him

Custodial Interrogations

Create a potentiality for compulsion, a conclusion based on the Court's review of police manual instructions for interrogation techniques which prompted an atmosphere of domination by police interrogators.

Custody

Custody occurs when the defendant is at the station, under arrest, or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way. Under Miranda, an interrogation is custodial whenever a reasonable person in the suspect's position would feel that he or she is not at liberty of the interrogation to leave, considering the totality of the circumstances. Generally, a person is deemed to be in custody whenever he is under formal arrest or he is subjected to physical restraint tantamount to arrest.

Interrogation

Even if a suspect is in custody, his statement is admissible if he makes it freely and voluntarily and not in response to interrogation. thus, where a suspect, without being questioned, spontaneously makes an incriminating statement, that statement may be introduced against him, despite the absence of Miranda warnings.

Physical Restraint v. Terry Stops

Generally, a person is custody whenever he is under a formal arrest or is subjected to physical restraint tantamount to arrest. However, where a full-blown arrest is not involved, a restraint on physical freedom of movement is necessary but not sufficient to find Miranda custody. While a traffic stop does significantly curtail the freedom of action of the driver and the passengers in a detained vehicle, a traffic stop is different from actual custody. detention of a motorist pursuant to a traffics stop is presumptively temporary and brief. Circumstance associated with a typical traffic stop are not such that the motorist feels completely at the mercy of the police

Waiver of Miranda Rights

Generally, the Miranda rule prohibits the use at trial of any statements obtained from the accused as a result of custodial interrogation, unless the prosecution shows that there has been a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights. Waiver is required even where the accused does not expressly invoke his Miranda rights. Furthermore, the prosecution must prove the required elements of a valid waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. "Knowing and intelligent" requires that the suspect make the waiver "with a full awareness of both the nature of the right[s] being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon [them]." This is precisely the point of requiring Miranda warnings—which, when properly administered, fully convey all the necessary information

Invoking Rights at Any Time

If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.

What is Interrogation

Interrogation means the express questioning or its equivalent. Functional equivalent is defined as any words or actions on the part of the police - other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody - that the police knew or should have known are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suepect.

Station House - Location

Interrogations that take place in station houses are more likely to be found custodial.

When Does Miranda Apply

Miranda applies when a person is subjected to custodial interrogations. Custodial interrogation does not depend on whether the individual has been formally charged with a crime, rather, Miranda's application is not offense specific, and applies whenever there is custodial interrogation regardless of the subject matter of the interrogation

Miranda Court

Miranda found incommunicado interrogation at odds with the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda articulated the protection of a defendant's free will to protect the privilege and created a 5th Amendment right to counsel in order to protect a D's access to the privilege during the interrogation process.

The 5th Amendment

The 5th amendment provides that no one shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself or herself. This right enables a person accused of a crime to refuse to testify on behalf of the prosecution during a criminal trial against him.

Purpose of Miranda

The Court in Miranda were concerned that station house interrogations occurred without the suspect ever having been informed of his constitutional rights or having been given a meaningful opportunity to decide whether to assert or waive them. Thus, Miranda held that, generally, "the prosecution may not use [in evidence at trial any] statements... stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." before any "custodial interrogation" begins, the police must provide the suspect with basic information concerning his constitutional rights.

Location of Custody

The place in which the interrogation takes place will often have an important bearing on whether custody exists. The test is always whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would believe that he was free to leave, and this will depend in part on the locale. Where there is coercive pressure = likely to be found in custody.

Do not have to repeat Miranda Verbatim

The precise language of Miranda is not required if it is effective and assuring the suspect that he has the right to remain silent and that he has the right to exercise his rights during the interrogation

Officer's Intent (Custody)

Under the reasonable suspect standard, the unexpressed intent of the interrogating officer to hold the suspect is irrelevant.

Minor Crimes or Felonies

Warnings must be given no matter how minor the crime or regardless of the fact that no jail sentence may be imposed It would be unreasonable to expect the police to make guesses as to the nature of the criminal conduct at issue before deciding how they may interrogate a suspect. Police are often unaware of whether one has committed a felony or misdemeanor - Miranda is not dependent upon nature or severity of the offense

Under Cover Agents

When a D talks to an undercover agent and is unaware that he is talking to a law enforcement officer, there is no custodial interrogation because this does not involve the same coercive pressures as to the station house interrogation

Home - Custody

a. the Supreme Court once held that an individual was "in custody" while being interrogated in his bedroom. The bedroom was certainly not an "unfamiliar" environment. But, the fact that the suspect was arrested and interrogated by four armed officers at 4:00 a.m. exerted the same type of coercive pressure as a "stationhouse interrogation," and thus there was "custody" under Miranda

Invoking Right to Attorney

if the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.

Factors Courts will Consider whether a reasonable person believed he was in custody

location and duration of the questioning statements made during the questioning whether the subject is physically restrained whether the suspect is free to go at the the end of the interview the overall manner in which the interrogation is conducted.

After Rights are Given

once given the Miranda rights, interrogation may proceed only if the suspect knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives the rights contained in the warnings. Thus, any statement obtained in violation of the Miranda rules will be inadmissible as prosecution evidence, even if the statement is in a sense "voluntary"

When Miranda Does not Apply

questioning conducted by undercover agents routine booking questions police questioning about weapons under the public safety exception Statements taken in violation may be used to impeach the D if testifies and were not obtained in violation of DP

RI v. Innis -

where the police are aware of a peculiar sensitivity or psychological vulnerability on the part of the suspect, this has bearing on whether their conduct is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response However, it does not necessarily matter whether the conscious objective was to elicit an incriminating response. The police cannot be responsible for the unforeseeable consequences of their actions Even if a suspect is in "custody," his statement is admissible if he makes it freely and voluntarily, and not in response to "interrogation."

Suspect's Age

A child's age will be taken into consideration in determining whether a reasonable person in the suspect's shoes would believe he was in custody. Whether a suspect is "in custody" is an objective inquiry under Miranda and the age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to whether that child is in custody, so long as the age was known to the officer or would be objectively apparent to a reasonable officer. There are many aspects of law where children are treated differently than adults and a custody analysis should be no different. Simply put, a reasonable child will feel more pressure than a reasonable adult to submit to police questioning. Failing to distinguish between them would deprive children of their constitutional rights. Moreover, the case at bar exemplifies the absurdity of treating children with the same standard as adults. Without taking age into account, law enforcement and courts use a reasonable person of average years for custody analysis

Custodial Interrogation

By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

Street Encounters - Location

Brief in nature - no custody Traffic Stops: stops of a motorist that he is under arrest will normally not be custodial. Generally, roadside stops are not custodial even though the suspect's freedom of movement is curtailed. Such stops are usually made in public view And they are normally brief

Police Need Not Inform D of All Rights

There is no right to be informed that if D invokes his right to silence or counsel, questioning will be cut off or that a lawyer does not have to present at all times to advise prisoners there is no right to contact people outside the interrogation room there is no right to defense counsel's access to a client during interrogation