You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney prior to and during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you free of charge.
Even people who have no experience in the criminal justice system are generally familiar with this famous warning derived from the landmark Miranda v. Arizona United States Supreme Court case. The warning is customarily given by police to criminal suspects in the U.S. to protect their right against self-incrimination.
When must police notify a suspect of their Miranda rights? The answer: prior to custodial interrogation. This sounds easy enough, right? But the reality is that custody and interrogation are rather complex and can be nuanced. Let’s explore each concept further.
Custody
Miranda warnings are required only if a defendant is in custody. This means that the defendant has been either formally arrested or is facing a similar restraint on their liberty. In either situation, the question is whether a reasonable person would feel free to end the interrogation and leave. If not, that defendant is in custody.
However, there are certain circumstances that courts have held are not custodial for Miranda purposes (and therefore don’t require notification of Miranda rights), even if the defendant is not free to leave:
- A routine traffic stop that is generally brief, public, and doesn’t carry the risk of compulsion found in a station house interrogation.
- Questioning during a Terry stop, which is a brief detainment.
- Questioning of an incarcerated prisoner about a different offense.
- The defendant comes in voluntarily to a station house for an interview.
Keep in mind, however, that any of the above situations could be custodial if additional facts exist that would cause a reasonable person to believe they weren’t free to leave.
Interrogation
Now, let’s consider interrogation. For Miranda purposes, interrogation means questioning or its functional equivalent. Most of the time, it’s easy to determine whether officers are interrogating a suspect. But there are some nuances.
For example, officers may discuss details of the crime in a suspect’s presence. In such a case, a court considers whether a reasonable officer would have known that their statement was likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. If so, it’s considered interrogation.
Exceptions to Miranda Rights
Remember that Miranda ultimately derives from the Fifth Amendment, which covers only testimonial communications. Therefore, there are situations in which Miranda isn’t required, even for custodial interrogation.
- 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.
- Miranda applies only if a defendant subjectively believes that they are being interrogated by law enforcement. If the police use an undercover officer to pose as a cellmate and question a suspect in his jail cell, Miranda warnings aren’t required.
- 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.
What Isn’t an Exception to Miranda?
A defendant’s actual knowledge isn’t an exception. Police must provide Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation even if the defendant already knows their rights, such as through prior arrests.
Want to learn more about the ins and outs of Criminal Procedure? BARBRI provides essential resources to help you learn the Black Letter Law. Our 1L Exam Success program includes video lectures featuring the nation’s top legal scholars who distill complex concepts in captivating and memorable ways.
Interested in reading more? Fill out the form to read the full article.