Miranda Warnings & Arrests

Miranda Warnings
(Miranda Warnings = reading you your rights)

Most people think that Miranda Warnings have to be read the moment a person is arrested. Not true. Miranda Warnings need only be read prior to Custodial Interrogation. That means you have to be "in custody" and "interrogated", or else the police do not have to read you your rights.

• What is Miranda?

Miranda was four consolidated cases that the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona).
The main issue in this landmark case dealt with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.
 
• Miranda: Basic Facts

Because there are four consolidated cases, I'll only go into the facts surrounding Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda was an indigent Mexican defendant who was seriously disturbed and had pronounced sexual fantasies.The police arrested Miranda and took him to a special interrogation room where they secured a confession. Miranda was not at any time informed of his rights, and he did not have an attorney present during interrogation. Two hours of questioning resulted in a signed confession. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. The Supreme Court of Arizona upheld his conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction because Miranda had not been informed of his rights. However, upon being retried with the illegal confession excluded, Miranda was once again found guilty.
 
• Miranda: Fifth or Sixth Amendment Case?

Here is an interesting quote from the primary attorney on the Miranda case:
"I was introduced for my accomplishments primarily as being of counsel in Miranda, and consistently I must disabuse everyone of the accomplishment... When certirorari was granted and we were asked by the ACLU to prepare and file the brief, we had a meeting in our law office in which we agreed that the briefs should be written with the entire focus on the Sixth Amendment [right to counsel] because that is where the Court was headed after Escobedo [another landmark case], and, as you are all aware, in the very first paragraph [of the Miranda opinion] Chief Justice Warren said, 'It is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that is at issue today.' That was Miranda's effective use of counsel."
-John J. Flynn, Panel Discussion on the Exclusionary Rule (1972)
 
• The U.S. Constitution - Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Miranda is a Fifth Amendment Case

Amendment V
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 offense 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.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The U.S. Supreme Court's Final Decision in Miranda:
To summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. 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.

The Rights Broken Down (What Police Have to Tell the Suspect):

* Right to remain silent
* Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
* Right to an attorney prior to questioning
* If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.

Miranda is not a Constitutional Right! This court called the Miranda Warnings "procedural safeguards". Miranda is not found anywhere in the Constitution, and later court decisions emphasized that Miranda Warnings are not Constitutionally required and the Miranda Right to Counsel is not a Constitutional requirement because that is a Fifth Amendment "Right to Counsel" so that the defendant does not incriminate himself without understanding his rights under the Constitution - but there really is no "Fifth Amendment Right to Counsel" under the Constitution. Go read the Fifth Amendment. Right to Counsel is not stated. The court has said that there is a right to counsel, however, to preserve the Defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is different, and attaches only at critical proceedings (like arraignments where charges are filed) and does not attach to custodial interrogation (like Miranda does).

Miranda only applies to "custodial interrogation"

"Custodial Interrogation" Miranda Definition:
1) Questioning is initiated by police
2) While Def in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way (would a reas person feel free to leave?)
        (This #2 is the definition of Custodial)

Definition of Custodial - In custody or otherwise deprived of freedom in any significant way
Test for custodial - reasonable person in suspect's position would have understood that he was in custody
(police officer's subjective view of whether Def in custody is not despositive, is only a factor)

Definition of Interrogation
1) Express Questioning, or
2) Words or actions by the police that police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response

Defendant's statement in violation of Miranda cannot be used (except for impeachment) but a witness testimony resulting from def statement can be used. Impeachment means that if the Defendant takes the stand at trial, then the police can bring up a confession obtained in violation of Miranda to "impeach" the Defendant's testimony.

The Prosecution has burden to show Miranda upheld by a preponderance of the evidence

Miranda does not apply if def does not know he is being questioned by police agent (because if a defendant does not know he is being questioned by a police agent, then there is no "coercive" atmosphere as there would be in a "custodial interrogation" setting).

Exceptions to Miranda
* Public Safety Exception
If there is an threat to public safety, police to not have to delay to read Defendant his rights. Example: a suspect was apprehended in a grocery store. As soon as police caught him, they saw an empty gun holster and asked him, "Where is the gu?." At this point, the suspect had not been read his rights. Defendant told them where the gun was located, and police found the gun and it was used against the Defendant at trial. The gun presented a public safety threat and the police did not need to suffer a delay in locating the gun to read the defendant his rights and then ask him where the gun was located (but after they found the gun, then they need to read him his rights before asking him anymore questions)
*Booking Exception
Police don't have to read a suspect his rights just to ask him normal questions during booking that are NOT designed to incriminate him (like name, age, address, telephone number).

The Erosion of Miranda
The later conservative Supreme Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist) has come down hard against Miranda, and it has proven quite difficult to get a reversal on a Miranda violation under Rehnquist.

Defendant can waive his Miranda Rights
Test for Miranda Waiver (Moran Case)
voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under a totality of circumstances:
1) Uncoerced Choice
2) Requisite level of comprehension of rights and consequences of decision to abandon rights

Waiver
*Express - stated explicitly or written
*Implied - silence coupled w/ understanding of rts and course of conduct showing a desire to waive may imply waiver
*Qualified Waiver  ex: Defendant waives rt to counsel for oral statements but not written (this is okay)

Invocation (5th Amendment) (invocation means to "invoke" your right)

If there is an invocation on        Can police Question defendant on
* Rt to remain silent                     Same Crime - No
                                                   Different Crime - Yes, if time has passed, new warnings given, and waiver

* Rt to Counsel                            Same Crime - No
   (Fifth/Miranda)                          Different Crime - No
   (Different for Sixth)

If Due Process violation (coerced confession), then time, warnings, and waiver no good b/c coercion seeps down/continues

In Federal Courts, there was an effort to "repeal" Miranda through statute, and Title II of the Crime Control Act passed in 1968.
Title II - Effort to Repeal Miranda in Fed Courts (fed only)
Confession is admissable if voluntary - totality of circumstances; case-by-case basis
factors (not conclusive)
    - How much time btwn arrest and arraignment?
    - Did def know he had a right to remain silent?
    - Was Defendant advised of his right to counsel?
    - Was Def w/ counsel when he confessed?

Technically, this statute is good law. Title II goes by more of a Due Process approach. Was the confession voluntary or was it coerced? If a Defendant is tried in Federal Court, and there was a Miranda Violation, then the prosecution can raise Title II and the Miranda Violation will not lead to an exclusion of the confession if Title II was followed. However, for some reason, the attorney general has decided not to pay attention to Title II and Title II has not, to my knowledge been used by the prosecution to get around a Miranda violation. Either way, Title II only applies to Federal Courts, not to state courts. In state courts, Miranda is still the reigning law.
 

Arrests

There is no requirement that police read a person his rights at the moment of arrest.

Arrest Warrant
Don't need if: felony arrests in public on prob cause (w/out warrant)
Arrest Warrant does not become stale (a search warrant, on the other hand, does become stale).

Staleness refers to how much time as passed between the obtaining of the information that lead to the warrant and when the agents obtained and executed the warrant. For instance, with search warrants, if the information was derived by a confidential informant who said that drugs would be found in the defendant's warehouse, the courts say that 10 days is about the maximum amount of time that information is good for. It's not likely that the drugs will still be there after 10 days and, therefore, probable cause disappears. However, with arrests warrants, the initial thing leading to the arrest warrant doesn't become stale (the defendant still "did it").

Once lawful arrest support by prob cause and person in custody, prob cause needs to be double-checked promptly by a judge.  Probable Cause: a reasonable belief in guilt
CA defines prompt as 48 hrs, presumptively 48 hours is "prompt"; can be rebutted by showing unreas delay

Examples of unreasonable delays:
1) delays for the purpose of gathering additional evidence to justify arrest
2) Ill will against the arrested individual
3) Delay for delay's sake

if delay exceeds 48 hrs then burden shifts to gov to show bona fide emergency

Full-Body Search
It is reason to conduct a full-body search once lawful, custodial arrest has been made (no warrant needed for full-body search once lawful custodial arrest made) --> don't want contraband introd into the jail

Search incident to a lawful arrest: No Warrant needed
officer's can search area on arrestee's person and area w/in the immediate control of the arrestee from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destroy evidence (area within the immediate control of arrestee where the arrest takes place)
Exception: Protective sweep - police can look at other areas beyond "search incident to arrest"
Protective Sweep - look where a person may be hiding from which an attack may be launched. Must be immediately ajoining the place of arrest (no prob cause or reas susp needed)
If Def needs to get dressed, police can also search drawers, etc, where suspect will have access to look for weapons
rationale:
1) need to disarm suspect in order to take him into custody
2) need to preserve evidence for later use at trial

Deadly Force:
Cannot use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect unless there is an immediate threat to the officer's safety or to public safety

Search incident to arrest and automobiles: Bright line rule -
as a contemporaneous search incident to arrest, police can search passenger compartment of car, including closed containers and glove compartment (but not trunk).

Exigent Circumstances and Searches as an independent exception to search warrant requirment
arrest does not supply its own exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search outside the immediate vicinity and, even so, search has to be contemporaneous with the arrest)

Back to Legal Clinic