Miranda%20v.%20Arizona

1
Miranda v. Arizona

• A Primer

2
Miranda Background

• Dealt with the admissibility of statements made
  during custodial interrogation under the Fifth
  Amendment's privilege against compelled
  self-incrimination.

3
Miranda Background

• To help dispel the inherently coercive
  atmosphere of custodial interrogation, a person
  in custody must be told of the right to remain
  silent and warned that any statements can and
  will be used against the individual in court.

4
Miranda Background

• Once-stated warning will not by itself fully
  protect the average citizen from the coercive
  pressures
• Requires that persons in custody be given the
  right to consult with a lawyer before and during
  interrogation.
• Right to counsel be included in the warnings
  given by the police

5
Why Miranda Warnings?

• If not done properly, no statements they make may
  be admitted in court.
• Why?
• (1) to avoid the risk that statements were
  compelled in violation of the defendant's Fifth
  Amendment rights
• (2) to encourage officers to comply with the
  Miranda rules, thereby lessening the future
  likelihood of compelled self-incrimination and
• (3) to discourage the kinds of unsavory police
  practices that tended to compel confessions from
  suspects.

6
Miranda Purpose

• The Constitution does not explicitly require such
  warnings or the exclusion of statements given in
  the absence of such warnings and waiver.
• Majority of the Court viewed custodial
  interrogations as inherently coercive and feared
  w/o it 5th Amendment would be useless

7
The Four Miranda Warnings

• If Miranda applies, a suspect must be given
  warnings before being questioned which indicate
• He has the right to remain silent,
• Anything he says can and will be used against him
  in a court of law,
• He has the right to the presence of an attorney,
  and
• If he cannot afford an attorney one will be
  appointed for him prior to any questioning if he
  so desires.

8
When does Miranda NOT apply?

• Miranda does NOT apply unless a person is in
  custody and subjected to interrogation by a law
  enforcement officer.

9
Custody

• Custody requires a significant deprivation of
  liberty.
• A person is in custody only if they are subjected
  to either formal arrest or its functional
  equivalent.
• Formal arrestoccurs when a person is explicitly
  told they are being placed under arrest or is
  booked at the stationhouse.
• Functional equivalentoccurs when a suspect's
  freedom of action is significantly curtailed to a
  degree associated with a formal arrest.
• Example Back of a cop car, in a closed room,
  Would a reasonable person in same situation
  believe they are in custody (not what did accused
  think)

10
Interrogation by Officer

• Even if the person is in custody, Miranda only
  applies if the suspect was interrogated by known
  law enforcement officers.
• Interrogation- includes any direct questioning by
  officers about a crime under investigation and
  more subtle statements or conduct that are the
  "functional equivalent" of direct questioning
• The functional equivalent of direct questioning
  is any speech or actions by an officer that they
  should have known were reasonably likely to
  elicit an incriminating response.

11
What is functional equivalent?

• Determining the functional equivalent
• Reasonably Likely
• Officer know response was likely
• Officers Intent
• Officers knowledge of the suspect
• Fear
• Link between the police conduct and crime
• Accusations
• Almost always interrogation

12
Exceptions to the Rule

• Spontaneous, volunteered statements
• Even if IN custody
• Miranda warnings are unnecessary prior to
  questioning that is reasonably prompted by a
  concern for the public safety
• Example interrogation that occurs as police try
  to locate a bomb they believe is set to go off

13
Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004)

• In a five to four decision, the Court strongly
  suggested that Alvarado was not in custody for
  Miranda purposes. (Due to the procedural posture
  of the case, the Courts actual holding was that
  the lower court had not ruled unreasonably when
  it determined that Alvarado was not in custody.)
  Alvarado came voluntarily to the police station,
  was never told that he could not leave, was not
  threatened with arrest, and was allowed to return
  home after the interview. In determining whether
  Miranda warnings are required, the custody
  inquiry is from the point of view of a reasonable
  suspect in the situation, not the particular
  suspect actually in the situation. Thus,
  Alvarados age and inexperience with police were
  irrelevant in the custody inquiry.

14
New York v. Quarles (1984)

• After police located Quarles who fit the
  description of an alleged assailant and wore an
  empty holster it would have been reasonable for
  a law enforcement officer to conclude that
  Quarles had just removed a gun from that holster
  and hidden it somewhere. A hidden gun could pose
  a significant threat to the public safety because
  it could become available for use by an
  accomplice or found and used by any other person.
  When a reasonable officer would conclude that
  there is a significant threat to the public
  safety, Miranda warnings need not be given. This
  is known as the public safety exception. Thus,
  a significant threat to the public safety
  justified the failure to give Quarles Miranda
  warnings

15
Yet to be heard

• These facts were taken from coverage of the
  recent incident in New York City in early May of
  2010 involving the Time Square Bomber. The law
  enforcement officers who questioned Shahzad after
  arresting him on the airplane invoked the public
  safety exception. Although his case has not yet
  been resolved (as of June 2010), his immediate
  arrest and questioning without Miranda warnings
  can be said to be justified by a significant
  threat to the public safety given that Shahzad
  could have been linked to other terrorist plots
  that had yet to unfold.
• In the wake of the incident, discussion has begun
  about the possibility of a new national security
  exception to Miranda. Shahzad continued
  answering questions after he was read his Miranda
  rights and reports suggest that he provided
  additional intelligence. Supporters of a new
  exception stress that he could have refused to
  say anything further and stopped the flow of
  important security information once the law
  enforcement officers determined the threat to the
  public safety had passed and read him his rights.
  They argue that the United States needs to be
  able to question suspected terrorists freely.

16
Berkemer v. McCarty

• When McCarty stepped out of his car he was not
  yet in custody. To the reasonable person, a
  traffic stop is presumptively temporary and
  brief and the motorist knows that in the end he
  most likely will be allowed to continue on his
  way. Therefore, Miranda warnings were not
  required before McCartys arrest. After his
  arrest, McCarty should have been read his Miranda
  rights because direct questioning resumed.
  However, given that McCartys pre-arrest
  statements were not subject to Miranda and
  provided substantial incriminating evidence
  against him, the Court considered failing to read
  McCarty his rights harmless error.