The 5th Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination & Interrogation
Definition of custody
generally defined as anytime the police deprive a person of their freedom of action in a significant way.
Definition of interrogation: "
"any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the subject."
Fare v Michael C. (1979):
A court must consider the circumstances in each case to determine whether a juvenile waived their Miranda rights when requesting probation officer. Police arrested Michael C., a 16 year old, on suspicion of murder. Michael was already on probation and had a long history of criminal offenses. Before questioning, policed informed Michael of his Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436(1966). Michael asked for his parole officer, but police said he was not available. Police offered Michael an attorney, which he refused. During questioning, Michael made incriminating statements that linked himself to the murder. At trial, Michael moved to suppress statements and sketches he drew during police questioning. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that Michael's request for his probation officer automatically invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination just as if Michael had asked for an attorney. Question Does a juvenile's request for his probation officer trigger the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology 5-4 DECISION FOR FARE MAJORITY OPINION BY HARRY A. BLACKMUN Potter Stewart Stewart Thurgood Marshall Marshall William J. Brennan, Jr. Brennan Byron R. White White Warren E. Burger Burger Harry A. Blackmun Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Powell William H. Rehnquist Rehnquist John Paul Stevens Stevens No. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion reversing the state court. The Supreme Court held that a juvenile's request for a probation officer does not invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. A court must look at the totality of the circumstances in each case to determine whether a juvenile waived that right. In this case, Michael knowingly waived his right to remain silent, so all evidence obtained during the police questioning is admissible in court. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a dissent, stating that Miranda requires police questioning to stop whenever a juvenile requests an adult who represents his interests. The case-by-case approach does not provide police with adequate guidance for future procedure. Justices William J. Brennan and John Paul Stevens joined in the dissent. Justice Lewis F. Powell wrote a dissent, expressing that police subjected Michael to a coercive interrogation.
Rhode Island v Innis
Applying the Miranda definition of "interrogation," officers speaking with a person in custody does not automatically constitute an interrogation unless they can reasonably know they might elicit incriminating responses. After a picture identification by the victim of a robbery, Thomas J. Innis was arrested by police in Providence, Rhode Island. Innis was unarmed when arrested. Innis was advised of his Miranda rights and subsequently requested to speak with a lawyer. While escorting Innis to the station in a police car, three officers began discussing the shotgun involved in the robbery. One of the officers commented that there was a school for handicapped children in the area and that if one of the students found the weapon he might injure himself. Innis then interrupted and told the officers to turn the car around so he could show them where the gun was located. Question Did the police "interrogation" en route to the station violate Innis's Miranda rights? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology 6-3 DECISION FOR RHODE ISLAND MAJORITY OPINION BY POTTER STEWART Potter Stewart Stewart Thurgood Marshall Marshall William J. Brennan, Jr. Brennan Byron R. White White Warren E. Burger Burger Harry A. Blackmun Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Powell William H. Rehnquist Rehnquist John Paul Stevens Stevens No. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Miranda safeguards came into play "whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent," noting that the term "interrogation" under Miranda included "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the subject." The Court then found that the officers' conversation did not qualify as words or actions that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit such a response from Innis.
5th Amednement
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Once the police have gathered proof and decided that someone should be arrested for a crime, the Fifth Amendment sets rules protecting that person to make sure they aren't tricked or taken advantage of by the police and prosecutors. The police and prosecutors can't make you talk to them abut the crime, and if you are found not guilty, they can't keep on having trials until someone finds you guilty. They also can't keep things that belong to you without paying for them. A grand jury is required to try civilians in Federal Court for a felony; Nobody can be charged with the same exact crime twice; Nobody can be compelled to testify against themselves in a criminal case; The government cannot take your life, liberty, or property without due process; and If the government takes your property for public use, they must compensate you for it.
Safeguards to prevent 5th Amendment infringement:
Suspect aware of right be silent, Any statement they make can be used against them, Has a right to have an attorney present, May waive these rights voluntarily, And that if any points they request an attorney, there will be no further questioning until the attorney arrives.
Schmerber v California
The protection against self-incrimination applies specifically to compelled communications or testimony. (Not blood tests like in this case.) Schmerber had been arrested for drunk driving while receiving treatment for injuries in a hospital. During his treatment, a police officer ordered a doctor to take a blood sample which indicated that Schmerber had been drunk while driving. The blood test was introduced as evidence in court and Schmerber was convicted. Question Did the blood test violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology 5-4 DECISION MAJORITY OPINION BY WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR. Earl Warren Warren Hugo L. Black Black William O. Douglas Douglas Tom C. Clark Clark John M. Harlan II Harlan William J. Brennan, Jr. Brennan Potter Stewart Stewart Byron R. White White Abe Fortas Fortas No. Justice Brennan argued for a 5-4 majority that the protection against self-incrimination applied specifically to compelled communications or testimony. Since the results of the blood test were neither "testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds."
Miranda v Arizona (1966):
This case represents the consolidation of four cases, in each of which the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel. Question Do the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology 5-4 DECISION FOR MIRANDA MAJORITY OPINION BY EARL WARREN The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. Earl Warren Warren Hugo L. Black Black William O. Douglas Douglas William J. Brennan, Jr. Brennan Abe Fortas Fortas Tom C. Clark Clark John M. Harlan II Harlan Potter Stewart Stewart Byron R. White White Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place. Such safeguards include proof that the suspect was aware of his right to be silent, that any statement he makes may be used against him, that he has the right to have an attorney present, that he has the right to have an attorney appointed to him, that he may waive these rights if he does so voluntarily, and that if at any points he requests an attorney there will be no further questioning until the attorney arrives. The Court held that, in each of the cases, the interrogation techniques used did not technically fall into the category of coercive, but they failed to ensure that the defendant's decision to speak with the police was entirely the product of his own free will. Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties. He wrote that the state should have the burden to prove that the suspect was aware of his rights during the interrogation, but that statements resulting from interrogation should not be automatically excluded if the suspect was not explicitly informed of his rights. In his separate dissenting opinion, Justice John M. Harlan wrote that the judicial precedent and legislative history surrounding the Fifth Amendment does not support the view that the Fifth Amendment prohibits all pressure on the suspect. He also argued that there was no legal precedent to support the requirement to specifically inform suspects of their rights. Justices Potter Stewart and Byron R. White joined in the dissent. Justice White wrote a separate dissent in which he argued that the Fifth Amendment only protects defendants from giving self-incriminating testimony if explicitly compelled to do so. He argued that custodial interrogation was not inherently coercive and did not require such a broad interpretation of the protections of the Fifth Amendment. Such an interpretation harms the criminal process by destroying the credibility of confessions. Justices Harlan and Stewart joined in the dissenting opinion.
