Miranda Warnings

Allowable alternatives to reading Miranda

(1) Read rights -->D says he wants an attorney --> police put D in jail cell instead and don't talk to him. (2) Getting the exact wording of Miranda wrong is ok as long as there is no substantive change.

2 Issues for Miranda

2 separate issues/claims: (1) Miranda invoked? You have to say that you would like to exercise your right to remain silent. You can ask for counsel. (2) Miranda Waived? [a. knowingly?; b. voluntarily?] It is harder to understand, because you can waive your right just by speaking. If you waive, the government has a HIGH burden of showing that you waived your rights. The police can keep questioning you until you invoke your rights. If you don't, they can ask you until you waive your rights. The police can only use the evidence of your testimony if you have unequivocally understood and waived your rights. Once you talk, you waive both.

Dickerson v. United States

Congress cannot legislatively supersedes a decision by the United States Supreme Court that interprets and applies the constitution. • Congress enacted a statute saying admissibility of statements turns only on whether or not voluntarily made (shifting back to voluntariness and seeking to eliminate the Miranda requirements) o There had been USSC language saying Miranda = supplement to 5A, but not part of 5A itself • Although Congress retains ultimate authority to modify/ set aside judicially created rules of evidence or procedure that are not required by the Constitution, it cannot supersede USSC's decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution • Miranda = constitutional rule (comes from Constitution) o Applies to state courts (wouldn't be applied to state courts unless federal Constitutional rule) o Although the USSC invited legislative action, ONLY something that is "at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence..." • Miranda = "part of national culture" • Core holding of Miranda - unwarned statements can't be used against D in P's case in chief • Miranda is Not required by the constitution BUT there must be something like it. Congress hasn't created a substitute at this point. • Miranda is good for the police b/c it is a virtual admission ticket for evidence.

What are 2 key parts of miranda?

Custodial Interrogation

Interrogation Test

Interrogation = express questioning or its functional equivalent, meaning any words or actions on part of police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. A practice that police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from the suspect = interrogation. o Things that police know at time of talking goes into the test o Was it designed to elicit a response? o Not only express Q b/c Miranda applied to several situations that were coercive but not expressQ • What are we trying to achieve for our 5A right here? o We're worried about compelled answersmakes sense to say if not compelled, MW don't kick in o Even if officers talking and want to get responsereal Q is: is D compelled to respond and confess? Not particularly coercive in Innis. o Or could view it as police will be angry if can't find the gunthey will come down on D and then might be compelled to incriminate himself o The court is trying to avoid creating a "subtle compulsion" test. Note: Hibbel case showed that it is NOT a violation of the 5th Am. for you to be required to give your name to the police. Why? Nevada has made it a law that refusing to give the police your name is a criminal violation.

What must a suspect do with Miranda?

Invoke OR WAIVE

Illinois v. Perkins

Miranda warning NOT required when suspects and undercover officer are talking, and the suspect gives a voluntary statement. These conversations do not implicate Miranda concerns, b/c the suspect is not being compelled. This also looks a lot like the third party doctrine.

Custody Test

Objectively, would a reasonable person have felt his freedom of action curtailed to a "degree associated with formal arrest"? [objective test from D's POV] (yesin custody) o RULE: a policeman's unarticulated plan has NO bearing on the Q of whether a suspect was "in custody" at a particular time; the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation o Suspect's age is the only characteristic of the D that can be considered in custody analysis. (J.D.B. v. North Carolina). So, NOT a reasonable person who was also intoxicated, etc.

Harris v. New York

Statements taken in violation of Miranda can be used to impeach a D's Testimony.

Rhode Island v. Innis

Under Miranda, "interrogation" refers to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. o O's arrested D and read MR and D said understood and wanted to speak to lawyeron way to station, O's in car talking to each other about how it'd be tragic if a handicapped child found gunD said he'd take them to the gun o "in custody" when being transported to police station, but NOT being interrogated b/c court said not reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response b/c just off-hand remarks o If D could prove there wasn't a school and so this was definitely a police practice designed to elicit an incriminating response that "may well have a bearing" in this objective inquiry o Concurrence: same definition, but wants opposite outcome o Contra Nix (Christian Burial)—knew he was super religious, so that would meet our test in way might not if didn't know he's super religious

Berkemer v. McCarty

a person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to Miranda safeguards regardless of the severity of the offense for which he is arrested (counts for misdem.) o Seizure when he acquiesced to police show of authority by pulling over (NOT in custody). In terms of a car, getting pulled over for a traffic violation is like a "terry stop." "in custody" when formally placed under arrest o D arrested for misdemeanor traffic offensenot read his MRstatements made by D at the jail are inadmissible State's argument: want exception to Miranda when arresting people for misdemeanor traffic offenses (so can use statement D made in jail) b/c we aren't worried about coercing for confessions in non-serious crimes + warnings are unnecessary in these circs b/c police have no reason to subject such a suspect to the sort of interrogation that worried Mir. Ct. • Court rejects this, in part b/c would undermine the clarity of Miranda o RULE (2): roadside questioning of motorist detained pursuant to traffic stop is NOT custodial interrogationstatements made PRIOR to arrest are admissible against D traffic stops are "presumptively temporary and brief" + in publicless police dominating not a bright line rule o Result: his pre-arrest statement that he had consumed 2 beers and smoked weed was admissible, but his statement in jail was not admissible • Arrest is hard to define. The court needed to determine what about this case looked like an arrest? An arrest is a curtailment of freedom. They settled on Would a reasonable person think they were under arrest if they were in the custody of the police NOT the police officer's unarticulated plan. Remember - even if it is a traffic stop - the person still has Miranda.

How does Miranda effect 5th Am. Criminal cases?

link between using that information in criminal case. If don't use it at trial, Miranda doesn't apply b/c it is all about WHAT GETS IN. "compelled."

Oregon v. Mathiason

no custody when O told D to come to station and lied about fingerprints matching scene to get confession from D o Can be in station and not be in custody o Can be in home and be in custody o Takeaway: location isn't determinative. Look at everything. • NOT the same line as with the 4A - DIFFERENT FROM SEIZURE o Custody > seizure o Factors to determine whether "in custody": did officer tell D he's in custody? Handcuffed? Number of officers? In Berkemer, wasn't in custody - didn't tell in custody, wasn't handcuffed, only 1 O.

Berghuius v. Thompkins

o D's best facts: didn't sign waiver + sat silently for almost 3 hours Ct. said even with these, ambiguousconstrued against D o Court pointed to Davis v. United States, which held that invocation of right to counsel must be unambiguous. said this requirement should apply to the right to remain silent as well o RULE: D needs to say he wants to remain silent in order to invoke right to remain silent o Waiver: must be voluntary (free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation coercion, or deception) + made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. o State needs to show: that MW was given and that the accused understood these rights in order for D's statement to establish waiver o Holding: a suspect who has received + understood the MW + has not invokedwaives right to remain silent by making an un-coerced statement to the police • Coercion o Not enough in ?. The length of time (3 hours) is the most coercive factor herelonger it is, the more likely it is coercive. o Needs to be more, like sedation, sleep and food deprivation, threats, etc.

New York v. Quarles

public safety exception to Miranda - The police may question a suspect without first reading his Miranda warnings, and the suspect's statements may be admitted at trial, where the exigency of a situation requires that public safety takes precedent over a suspect's 5th Am. privilege. • Officers had strong evidence that D had ditched gun in supermarket (specifically Id'ed by victim who said had gun + empty gun holster). O handcuffed D and asked when gun wasD indicatedO got gun and arrested him and read rights. • Interrogation b/c he was handcuffed + 4 officers pointing guns. "in custody." • Danger to public safety before located gun b/c an accomplice could have gotten it, or a store employee (court sees this as very dangerous in NY in 1984 - like a bomb) • Evidence: "the gun is over there" + the gun + subsequent statements • RULE: public safety exception to requirement that Miranda warnings must be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence. Does NOT depend on motivation of the officers involved. o The questions must be necessary to secure officer/public safety for the public safety exception to apply. Can NOT apply when the questions are designed solely to elicit testimonial evid. from D. o Needs to be strong evidence that there is a real threat to public safety, not just a suspicion o THERE IS AN IMMENINCE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS TO APPLY. See Rhode Island v. Innis - not public safety b/c the guy through the gun away far from people. He was on the side of the road. • Concurrence: Miranda violation has no fruit beyond the statement itself • P could also have used inevitable discovery for the gun, but no fruits for Miranda doctrine anyway, so not necessary here. • Other violations? o D could say he was actually compelled5A violation + Due Process involuntariness (can't separate this from the Constitution). But, probably not enough here (but could try). • Separated Miranda from 5Anot the same thing. The public safety doctrine is NOT an exigency to the 5th Am. • Note: There is a difference between Miranda and 5th Am. o Due Process and Voluntariness are key for statements. o If the police deny you medical care until you talk, due process applies more until they try to introduce the evidence at trial. It all depends on the circumstances.

North Carolina v. Butler

waiver can be implicit o D refused to sign waiver on form but said he'd talk to them but not sign anything. Never requested counsel. D was relying on Miranda line that says waiver needs to be "specifically made" o Rule: don't need express waiver. Q = whether D in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in Miranda, and you can get to yes here w/o explicit waiver • Miranda warnings given + D makes a statement + D understood • Any waiver may be contradicted by an invocation at any time (meaning interrogation must stop) • Facts to use to say "knowingly"/understood rights: received written copy, was given time to read, read aloud, literate, could understand English (Berghuis) • D's incriminating statement = the waiver. o Berghuis - "yes" to the Q about praying for forgiveness. Did it knowingly b/c [facts in above bullet] + voluntarily b/c no coercion • Even if it's D's fault that police can't get all the rights out, can't say D knowingly waived them

The Warnings

• (1) right to remain silent o BLANKET APPLICATION - does NOT matter if person knows rights, even if definitely does. Courts have not backed off on this. "courts will never inquire as to whether a particular person was actually aware of rights w/o warning." o Now, less confrontational if do remain silent b/c was just told you can. • (2) anything said can be used against you in court of law • (3) right to presence of an attorney o DIFFERENT from 6A, which only requires an attorney after "adversary proceedings have [formally] commenced." (aka not to the interrogations before formal charge.) • (4) if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you

Analysis

• (1) what violations? • (2) If violationwhat then o no fruits for this doctrine. Only statements' admissibility is at issue. • (3) does public safety exception apply? o Is there a current danger/threat to public safety? • (4) if no violation/ not requiring Miranda (exception or decide won't admit evidence)all that comes w/ Miranda goes away (don't have to honor request for counsel, etc.) but 5A and DP still apply o torture = involuntarily forced to under DP test o Miranda Warnings and the Involuntariness Test are 2 separate ways to achieve goal Unlikely able to meet involuntariness test if gave MW, but is possible o Miranda = guidance for the permissible way to ask D questions (roadmap for how to interrogate someone within the confines of 5A)

Miranda v. Arizona

• Facts: all Ds were questioned in an isolated room. None were given a full and effective warning of their rights. All elicited oral and/or signed statements/admissions. • Voluntariness: all would lose if challenged using voluntariness test + would lose 6A right to counsel claim because that doesn't extend to interrogations • RULE: the 4 safeguards/warnings + opportunity to exercise them must be afforded throughout interr. • Issue: admissibility of the statements/confessions o Evidence: confession or just a small piece of info given by D that police want to use • In-custody interrogation = "inherently compelling pressures" = "compelled" in 5A text regularly leads to people being compelled to incriminate themselves unless safeguards are enacted. • Trying to fix problem of problematic police practices, as shown by the police manuals themselves. o Ex.: posit the D's guilt as fact, have false IDs to elicit admissions of guilt, etc. • LIMIT: this is a placeholder until another effective protection is proposed. Courts have said deviation from language of warnings is fine as long as didn't screw with substance. o General, on the scene questioning is unaffected by this holding b/c the compelling atmosphere inherent in process of in-custody interrogation is not necessarily present. Same if in D's house. Don't have to give MW b/c not in custody + don't have to when not asking Qs • 2 things going on: (1) we want people to be aware of their rights + (2) we don't want them to talk (Bellin doesn't really approve of part 2) • Safeguards = prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by D • Not waived if answers some questions then invokes right to remain silent • NOTE: THERE ARE NO FRUITS OF A MIRANDA VIOLATION. o In terms of physical evidence, the SC has stated that the police may use whatever they found after your statements. They could not use your statement, but they may use the evidence discovered from your statement.

Invoking Miranda

• If invoke the right, interrogation must stop. If ask Qs after that and D gives statementinadmissible • Ambiguity will be construed against the suspect (Berghuis)