🫥
Criminal Procedure • Miranda
CRIMPRO#024
Legal Definition
The 5th Amendment requires that, for a confession to be admissible, a person in custody must be given Miranda warnings prior to interrogation.
Plain English Explanation
If you have ever seen a tv show or movie involving someone getting arrested, you've undoubtedly heard someone being read their Miranda rights: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer..." so on and so forth. This is basically the government saying, "Hey, person we suspect of criminal activity, we want to be super clear with you that if you want to not say a word to us and force us to work harder to convict you of a crime, that is your right to do so. But just know that the second you open your mouth and start talking to us, there's a decent chance that you'll say something stupid that we will absolutely use against you in court to convict you. So, again, you probably want to shut up, and if you don't want to shut up, you probably want to have an attorney advise you what to say so you don't say something stupid. Or you can ignore this advice, but don't say we didn't warn you, because we are warning you, which is why this is the standard thing we say when arresting people."
The key to the Miranda requirement is that it only applies when a person is in custody and when they are interrogated. This means, on an exam, you'll need to argue whether or not a person was in custody, and whether or not the government agent's questions qualify as an interrogation. For help with both of these, tap into the Hypos section.
The key to the Miranda requirement is that it only applies when a person is in custody and when they are interrogated. This means, on an exam, you'll need to argue whether or not a person was in custody, and whether or not the government agent's questions qualify as an interrogation. For help with both of these, tap into the Hypos section.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam is walking down the sidewalk. Officer is standing next to the sidewalk. As Sam walks by, Officer shouts, "Hi! Commit any crimes today?" Result: By no stretch of the imagination has Sam been detained. He is just walking by Officer and, if he wants, he can ignore Officer and keep on walking.
Hypo 2: Sam is walking down the sidewalk. Officer is standing next to the sidewalk. As Sam walks by, Officer says, "Hey, stop right there, I want to talk to you." Result: This still probably isn't coercive enough to be custody. Sam may be intimidated by the Officer, but he is out in the public, and it's just a single Officer. Sam could decline the Officer and continue walking until the Officer makes it more clear that he is ordering Sam to stop because he is being detained.
Hypo 3: Sam is walking down the sidewalk. Four officers are standing on the sidewalk. As Sam walks by, an officer blocks Sam's path while the three other officers surround Sam. Result: Sam is in custody. It is clear that Sam has no freedom to leave or disengage with the officers. This lack of freedom is what defines being in custody.
Hypo 4: Same facts as Hypo 3, but now one officer notices Sam is wearing a Dodgers jersey. The officer is also a baseball fan, so he asks Sam, "Did you catch the Dodgers game last night?" Sam freaks out. Sam missed last night's baseball game because he was too busy murdering someone. Sam confesses, "No! I'm sorry. I didn't mean to kill her! It just happened!" Result: Sam is in custody, but the question that the officer is asking is not an interrogation because it was not asked for the purpose of eliciting a criminal response. It was just the officer making small talk. The fact that it coincidentally provoked Sam into confessing a crime isn't the officer's fault, which means Sam's statements can be used against him.
Hypo 5: Same facts as Hypo 3, but now one officer notices Sam is wearing a Dodgers jersey. The officer becomes suspicious because a person matching Sam's description and wearing a Dodgers jersey is being sought in relation to a murder that happened last night during the same time that the baseball game occurred. The officer asks Sam, "Did you catch the Dodgers game last night? Or were you busy doing anything else?" Sam freaks out and admits that he didn't see the game because he got in an argument with someone and killed them. Result: Sam's Miranda rights were violated and, as a result, his statements cannot be used against him as evidence during trial. So what changed in this hypo? Well, first off Sam is clearly in custody, as he is being surrounded by officers who have demanded he stop and answer their questions. Second, the officer's question about seeing the Dodger's game was not small talk; rather, it was a question designed to try to elicit a response that would help the officer figure out whether or not Sam was the suspect they are looking for. Because its intent was to seek out an incriminating response, the officer was required to first notify Sam of his Miranda rights before the question because it qualifies as an interrogation.
Hypo 2: Sam is walking down the sidewalk. Officer is standing next to the sidewalk. As Sam walks by, Officer says, "Hey, stop right there, I want to talk to you." Result: This still probably isn't coercive enough to be custody. Sam may be intimidated by the Officer, but he is out in the public, and it's just a single Officer. Sam could decline the Officer and continue walking until the Officer makes it more clear that he is ordering Sam to stop because he is being detained.
Hypo 3: Sam is walking down the sidewalk. Four officers are standing on the sidewalk. As Sam walks by, an officer blocks Sam's path while the three other officers surround Sam. Result: Sam is in custody. It is clear that Sam has no freedom to leave or disengage with the officers. This lack of freedom is what defines being in custody.
Hypo 4: Same facts as Hypo 3, but now one officer notices Sam is wearing a Dodgers jersey. The officer is also a baseball fan, so he asks Sam, "Did you catch the Dodgers game last night?" Sam freaks out. Sam missed last night's baseball game because he was too busy murdering someone. Sam confesses, "No! I'm sorry. I didn't mean to kill her! It just happened!" Result: Sam is in custody, but the question that the officer is asking is not an interrogation because it was not asked for the purpose of eliciting a criminal response. It was just the officer making small talk. The fact that it coincidentally provoked Sam into confessing a crime isn't the officer's fault, which means Sam's statements can be used against him.
Hypo 5: Same facts as Hypo 3, but now one officer notices Sam is wearing a Dodgers jersey. The officer becomes suspicious because a person matching Sam's description and wearing a Dodgers jersey is being sought in relation to a murder that happened last night during the same time that the baseball game occurred. The officer asks Sam, "Did you catch the Dodgers game last night? Or were you busy doing anything else?" Sam freaks out and admits that he didn't see the game because he got in an argument with someone and killed them. Result: Sam's Miranda rights were violated and, as a result, his statements cannot be used against him as evidence during trial. So what changed in this hypo? Well, first off Sam is clearly in custody, as he is being surrounded by officers who have demanded he stop and answer their questions. Second, the officer's question about seeing the Dodger's game was not small talk; rather, it was a question designed to try to elicit a response that would help the officer figure out whether or not Sam was the suspect they are looking for. Because its intent was to seek out an incriminating response, the officer was required to first notify Sam of his Miranda rights before the question because it qualifies as an interrogation.
Related Concepts
How many one properly invoke the right to counsel?
How may one properly invoke the right to silence?
In assessing a Miranda related 5th Amendment issue, what constitutes an interrogation?
In assessing a Miranda related 5th Amendment issue, what constitutes a waiver?
In assessing a Miranda related 5th Amendment issue, what constitutes custody?
What is the admissibility of illegally obtained confessions?
What is the public safety exception to the Miranda requirement?
What part of the interrogation process does Miranda apply to?
