Miranda Rights And Wrongs

By now, most people are familiar with the phrase “Miranda rights”. It comes from the 1966 United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. While there is widespread familiarity with the phrase, there is also widespread misunderstanding of what exactly it means. In this post we’re going to talk about: what it is; what it does; what it doesn’t do. The goal is to provide a better understanding of the issue. Bear in mind that volumes upon volumes of court decisions have been written over the years regarding Miranda and its applicability to specific factual situations. That is well beyond the scope of this post. Also bear in mind, this post is not intended to provide legal advice for your specific situation.

         WHAT IT IS: The decision is premised on 2 Amendments to the U.S Constitution: the 5^th (self-incrimination clause); the 6^th (right to an attorney).

                 “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.”

A person can waive these rights if he/she makes a knowing (he/she understood the rights) and voluntary waiver of the rights.

WHAT IT DOES: The Court then established a rule of evidence that holds if law enforcement fails to comply with the requirements, a confession obtained from the interrogation cannot be used against the individual. However, as discussed below, it does not provide a get out of jail free card. The Miranda decision itself and subsequent court decisions have set the parameters for its applicability.

WHAT IT DOESN’T DO: First, it does not apply to all interactions with law enforcement. The decision holds that it only applies to “custodial interrogations”. Miranda warnings are required only if a defendant is in custody. This means that the individual is not free to leave or that a reasonable person would conclude he/she is not free to leave. Second there must be an interrogation. When law enforcement begins to ask questions that could lead to self-incriminating answers, it is interrogation.

There are certain circumstances where Miranda does not apply even though it may appear to be a custodial situation. For example, the routine-booking exception permits officers to ask standard booking questions, such as questions regarding the defendant’s date of birth, address, height and weight, etc.Under the public-safety exception, officers don’t have to provide Miranda warnings before asking a suspect about the location of a weapon that poses an imminent threat.

Police don’t need to provide Miranda warnings before making a suspect stand in a lineup, give a blood sample, or even recite a phrase for the purpose of making a voice identification, although a search warrant may be required

OTHER ISSUES: It would seem to be a simple matter: you’re in police custody, they are about to begin your interrogation and they read you your Miranda rights. They then ask you if you understand those rights. What you say next is vitally important. To properly invoke your Miranda rights, you must explicitly, clearly, and unambiguously state to law enforcement that you wish to remain silent or want an attorney. Say, “I am invoking my right to remain silent” or “I want a lawyer”. Once these rights are invoked, all questioning must cease immediately. DO NOT say things like “Do you think I need a lawyer?” “Maybe I should have a lawyer” or words to that effect. There are numerous court decisions that have held that such unclear or ambiguous comments are not enough to invoke Miranda protections.

Also once you have clearly and unambiguously asserted your right to remain silent, remain silent. We have seen scenarios in which once a suspect has properly asserted his/her rights, the suspect is told that it will take some time to get a lawyer present. An officer then stays in the room with the suspect and begins to chat with the suspect about innocent topics, e.g. fishing, the weather, etc. The suspect engages in these conversations with the officer. As the conversation goes on, the suspect “warms up” to the officer and sees the officer as friendly. The suspect’s decision to remain silent begins to soften and he/she decides to go ahead and take back the Miranda decision.

         If you find yourself facing criminal charges, whether or not there is a “confession”, your personal liberty is at stake. Call the Kessler Law Firm for experienced, professional and assertive representation. Given the stakes, you should settle for nothing less.