🫥
Criminal Procedure • Miranda
CRIMPRO#026
Legal Definition
An interrogation is conduct where the police knew or should have known that they might elicit an incriminating response. However, spontaneous statements are not interrogations.
Plain English Explanation
The most obvious example of someone being interrogated is when they are handcuffed to a desk inside of a police station, in a dark room, sitting underneath a bright light while two cops take turns yelling questions at the suspect. However, legally, this does not define the standard. Rather, an interrogation is merely any time a police officer tries to get a suspect to say something incriminating by talking to them, asking them questions, or just by their conduct and engagement with the suspect. Think of it like a locksmith trying to pick a lock. The information is inside of the suspects head, and any intentional action by police to try to retrieve that information can be an interrogation. Note, however, that spontaneous statements from the suspect are not interrogations. In other words, if a suspect decides to give up information without the police provocation, then there is no Miranda violation if their rights were not yet read to them.
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 a waiver?
In assessing a Miranda related 5th Amendment issue, what constitutes custody?
What is the admissibility of illegally obtained confessions?
What is the Miranda requirement of the 5th Amendment?
What is the public safety exception to the Miranda requirement?
What part of the interrogation process does Miranda apply to?
