Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 28–March 1, 1966 Decided June 13, 1966
Full case name	Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart
Citations	384 U.S. 436 (more) 86 S. Ct. 1602; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2817; 10 A.L.R.3d 974
Prior history	Defendant convicted, Ariz. Superior Ct.; affirmed, 401 P.2d 721 (Ariz. 1965); cert. granted, 382 U.S. 925 (1965)
Subsequent history	Retrial on remand, defendant convicted, Ariz. Superior Ct.; affirmed, 450 P.2d 364 (Ariz. 1969); rehearing denied, Ariz. Supreme Ct. March 11, 1969; cert. denied, 396 U.S. 868 (1969)
Argument	Oral argument
Holding
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice Associate Justices
Case opinions
Majority	Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas
Concur/dissent	Clark
Dissent	Harlan, joined by Stewart, White
Dissent	White, joined by Harlan, Stewart
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. V, Fourteenth Amendment

Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. This had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda rights a part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. The Supreme Court decided Miranda with three other consolidated cases: Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart.

The Miranda warning (often abbreviated to "Miranda") is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused is aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview.

As of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Berghuis v. Thompkins (June 1, 2010), criminal suspects who are aware of their right to silence and to an attorney, but chooses not to "unambiguously" invoke them, may find any subsequent voluntary statements treated as an implied waiver of their rights, and which therefore may be used in evidence.

Background

The legal aid movement

During the 1960s, a movement which provided defendants with legal aid emerged from the collective efforts of various bar associations.

In the civil realm, it led to the creation of the Legal Services Corporation under the Great Society program of President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Escobedo v. Illinois, a case which closely foreshadowed Miranda, provided for the presence of counsel during police interrogation. This concept extended to a concern over police interrogation practices, which were considered by many to be barbaric and unjust. Coercive interrogation tactics were known in period slang as the "third degree".

Arrest and conviction

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman 10 days earlier.^[1] After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge on forms that included the typed statement "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me."^[2] However, at no time was Miranda told of his right to counsel, and he was not advised of his right to remain silent or that his statements would be used against him during the interrogation before being presented with the form on which he was asked to write out the confession he had already given orally. At trial, when prosecutors offered Miranda's written confession as evidence, his court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. Moore's objection was overruled and based on this confession and other evidence, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Moore filed Miranda's appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court claiming that Miranda's confession was not fully voluntary and should not have been admitted into the court proceedings. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the confession in State v. Miranda, 401 P.2d 721 (Ariz. 1965). In affirming, the Arizona Supreme Court emphasized heavily the fact that Miranda did not specifically request an attorney.^[3]

Decision

Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former prosecutor, delivered the opinion of the Court, ruling that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police (Warren cited several police training manuals which had not been provided in the arguments), no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his/her rights and the suspect had then waived them:

[T]he person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.^[4]

Thus, Miranda's conviction was overturned. The Court also made clear what had to happen if the suspect chose to exercise his rights:

If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.

Justice Brennan's comments on the Miranda decision.

Although the ACLU had urged the Supreme Court to require the mandatory presence of a "station-house" lawyer at all police interrogations, Warren refused to go that far, or to even include a suggestion that immediately demanding a lawyer would be in the suspect's best interest.

Warren pointed to the existing practice of the FBI and the rules of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, both of which required notifying a suspect of his right to remain silent; the FBI warning included notice of the right to counsel.

However, the dissenting justices thought that the suggested warnings would ultimately lead to such a drastic effect—they apparently believed that once warned, suspects would always demand attorneys and deny the police the ability to seek confessions and accordingly accused the majority of overreacting to the problem of coercive interrogations.

Clark's concurrence in part, dissent in part

In a separate concurrence in part, dissent in part, Justice Tom C. Clark argued that the Warren Court went "too far too fast". Instead, Justice Clark would use the "totality of the circumstances" test enunciated by Justice Goldberg in Haynes v. Washington. Under this test, the court would:

consider in each case whether the police officer prior to custodial interrogation added the warning that the suspect might have counsel present at the interrogation and, further, that a court would appoint one at his request if he was too poor to employ counsel. In the absence of warnings, the burden would be on the State to prove that counsel was knowingly and intelligently waived or that in the totality of the circumstances, including the failure to give the necessary warnings, the confession was clearly voluntary.

Harlan's dissent

In dissent, Justice Harlan wrote that "nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities." Harlan closed his remarks by quoting former Justice Robert H. Jackson: "This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added."

White's dissent

Justice Byron White took issue with the court announcing a new constitutional right when it had no "factual and textual bases"' in the constitution or previous opinions of the court for the rule announced in the opinion, he stated "self-incrimination forbids in-custody interrogation without the warnings specified in the majority opinion and without a clear waiver of counsel has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment" nor did Justice White believe it had any basis in English common law.

White further warned the dire consequences of the majority opinion:

I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process.

In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity

Effects of the decision

Miranda was retried, and this time the prosecution did not use the confession but called witnesses and used other evidence. Miranda was convicted in 1967 and sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years. He was paroled in 1972. After his release, he returned to his old neighborhood and made a modest living autographing police officers' "Miranda cards" (containing the text of the warning, for reading to arrestees). He was stabbed to death during an argument in a bar on January 31, 1976.^[5]

Following the Miranda decision, the nation's police departments were required to inform arrested persons of their rights under the ruling, termed a Miranda warning.

The Miranda decision was widely criticized when it came down, as many felt it was unfair to inform suspected criminals of their rights, as outlined in the decision. President Richard M. Nixon and other conservatives denounced Miranda for undermining the efficiency of the police, and argued the ruling would contribute to an increase in crime. Nixon, upon becoming President, promised to appoint judges who would be "strict constructionists" and who would exercise judicial restraint. Many supporters of law enforcement were angered by the decision's negative view of police officers. The federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 purported to overrule Miranda for federal criminal cases and restore the "totality of the circumstances" test that had prevailed previous to Miranda. The validity of this provision of the law, which is still codified at 18 U.S. Code 3501, was not ruled on for another 30 years because the Justice Department never attempted to rely on it to support the introduction of a confession into evidence at any criminal trial. Miranda was undermined by several subsequent decisions which seemed to grant several exceptions to the "Miranda warnings," undermining its claim to be a necessary corollary of the Fifth Amendment.

Subsequent developments

Since it is usually required that the suspect be asked if they understand their rights, courts have also ruled that any subsequent waiver of Miranda rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Many American police departments have pre-printed Miranda waiver forms which a suspect must sign and date (after hearing and reading the warnings again) if an interrogation is to occur.

But the words "knowing, intelligent, and voluntary" mean only that the suspect reasonably appears to understand what they are doing, and is not being coerced into signing the waiver; the Court ruled in Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) that it is irrelevant whether the suspect may actually have been insane at the time.

A confession obtained in violation of the Miranda standards may nonetheless be used for purposes of impeaching the defendant's testimony: that is, if the defendant takes the stand at trial and the prosecution wishes to introduce the defendant's confession as a prior inconsistent statement to attack the defendant's credibility, the Miranda holding will not prohibit this (see Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971)).

A "spontaneous" statement made by a defendant while in custody, even though the defendant has not been given the Miranda warnings or has invoked the right to counsel and a lawyer is not yet present, is admissible in evidence, as long as the statement was not given in response to police questioning or other conduct by the police likely to produce an incriminating response (see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)).

There is also a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before questioning: for example, if the defendant is in possession of information regarding the location of an unattended gun or there are other similar exigent circumstances which require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence (see New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)). In 2009 the California Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Richard Allen Davis, finding that the public safety exception applied despite the fact that 64 days had passed from the disappearance of the girl later found to be murdered.^[6]

A number of empirical studies by both supporters and opponents of Miranda have concluded that the giving of Miranda warnings has little effect on whether a suspect agrees to speak to the police without an attorney. However, Miranda's opponents, notably law professor Paul Cassell, argued that letting go 3 or 4% of criminal suspects (who would be prosecuted otherwise but for defective Miranda warnings, or acting on defective waivers by defendants) is still too high a price to pay.

Miranda survived a strong challenge in Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), where the validity of Congress's overruling of Miranda was tested. At issue was whether the Miranda warnings were actually compelled by the U.S. Constitution, or were rather merely measures enacted as a matter of judicial policy.

Dickerson reached the Court under a bizarre set of circumstances. Although the Justice Department under President Clinton had treated Miranda as valid, the Supreme Court was forced to grant certiorari to prevent a circuit split after the 4th Circuit (on its own initiative) took up Professor Cassell's suggestion and ruled that Congress had overruled Miranda with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The Solicitor General refused to defend the constitutionality of the Act, so the Court invited Professor Cassell to argue against the validity of Miranda.

In Dickerson, the Court held 7–2 that "the warnings have become part of our national culture," speaking through Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Miranda warnings were not constitutionally required, citing a panoply of cases that demonstrated a majority of the then-current court, counting himself, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, and Thomas, "[were] on record as believing that a violation of Miranda is not a violation of the Constitution."

Over time, interrogators began to think of techniques to honor the "letter" but not the "spirit" of Miranda. In the case of Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), the Supreme Court halted one of the more controversial practices. Missouri police were deliberately withholding Miranda warnings and questioning suspects until they obtained confessions, then giving the warnings, getting waivers, and getting confessions again. Justice Souter wrote for the plurality: "Strategists dedicated to draining the substance out of Miranda cannot accomplish by training instructions what Dickerson held Congress could not do by statute."^[7]

United States V. Garibay points out another important matter in regards to expansion of the Miranda v. Arizona ruling. Mr. Garibay was arrested and never received his warnings. They failed to receive a waiver of these rights as well. Mr. Garibay was a man that barely spoke English and clearly showed a lack of understanding. "“…the agent admitted that he had to rephrase questions when the defendant appeared confused”^[8] The court ruled that the waiver of rights was not valid due to the defendant’s lack of I.Q. and English language skills. The court investigated many facets of his waiver and discovered that Mr. Garibay was missing all of those items that they were looking for. He never signed a waiver, he only received his warnings verbally, and in English, and no interpreter was provided although there were ones available. The lack of translated Miranda warnings adds another twist to the Miranda v. Arizona case.

Berghuis v. Thompkins is a ruling where the Supreme Court held that a suspect "ambiguous or equivocal" statement or no statements do not mean that police must end an interrogation.

The six rules

The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation. Miranda right to counsel and right to remain silent are derived from the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.^[9] Therefore, for Miranda to apply, six factors must be present:

1. Evidence must have been gathered.
2. The evidence must be testimonial.^[10]
3. The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody.^[11]
4. The evidence must have been the product of interrogation.^[12]
5. The interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents.^[13]
6. The evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution.^[14]

The first requirement is obvious. If the suspect did not make a statement during the interrogation the fact that he was not advised of his Miranda rights is of no import.^[15] Second, Miranda applies only to "testimonial" evidence as that term is defined under the Fifth Amendment.^[10] For purposes of the Fifth Amendment, testimonial statements mean communications that explicitly or implicitly relate a factual assertion [an assertion of fact or belief] or disclose information.^[16][17] The Miranda rule does not prohibit compelling a person to engage in non-assertive conduct that is incriminating or may produce incriminating evidence. Thus, requiring a suspect to participate in identification procedures such as giving handwriting^[18] or voice exemplars^[19], fingerprints, DNA samples, hair samples, and dental impressions is not within the Miranda rule. Such physical or real evidence is non-testimonial and not protected by the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause.^[20] On the other hand, certain non-verbal conduct may be testimonial. For example, if the suspect nodded his head up and down in response to the question "did you kill the victim" the conduct is testimonial, it is the same as saying "yes I did" and Miranda would apply.^[21]

Third, the evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody. This limitation follows from the fact that Miranda's purpose is to protect suspects from the compulsion inherent in the police dominated atmosphere attendant to arrest. Custody means either that the suspect was under arrest or that his freedom of movement was restrained to an extent "associated with a formal arrest."^[22] A formal arrest occurs when an officer, with the intent to make an arrest, takes a person into custody by the use of physical force or the person submits to the control of an officer who has indicated his intention to arrest the person. Telling a person he is "under arrest" is sufficient to satisfy this requirement even though the person may not be otherwise physically restrained.^[23] Absent a formal arrest, the issue is whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have believed that he was under "full custodial" arrest.^[24] Applying this objective test, the Court has held Miranda does not apply to roadside questioning of a stopped motorist or to questioning of a person briefly detained on the street—a Terry stop.^[25] Even though neither the motorist nor the pedestrian is free to leave, this interference with the freedom of action is not considered actual arrest or its functional equivalent for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.^[26] The court has similarly held that a person who voluntarily comes to the police station for purposes of questioning is not in custody and thus not entitled to Miranda warnings particularly when the police advise the suspect that he is not under arrest and free to leave.^[27]

Fourth, the evidence must have been the product of interrogation. A defendant who seeks to challenge the admissibility of a statement under Miranda must show that the statement was "prompted by police conduct that constituted 'interrogation'".^[28] A volunteered statement by a person in custody does not implicate Miranda. In Rhode Island v. Innis the Supreme Court defined interrogation as express questioning and "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect." Thus, a practice that the police "should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect ... amounts to interrogation." For example, confronting the suspect with incriminating evidence may be sufficiently evocative to amount to interrogation because the police are implicitly communicating a question: "How do you explain this?"^[29] On the other hand, "unforeseeable results of [police] words or actions" do not constitute interrogation. Under this definition, routine statements made during the administration of sobriety tests would not implicate Miranda. For example, a police officer arrests a person for impaired driving and takes him to the police station to administer an intoxilyzer test. While at the station the officer also asks the defendant to perform certain psycho-physical tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand or finger to nose test. It is standard practice to instruct the arrestee on how to perform the test and to demonstrate the test. An incriminating statement made by arrestee during the instruction, "I couldn't do that even if I was sober", would not be the product of interrogation. Similarly, incriminating statements made in response to requests for consent to search a vehicle or other property are not considered to be the product of interrogation.^[30]

Fifth, the interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents. In order to establish a violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, the defendant must show state action. In the Miranda context, this means that the interrogation must have been conducted by a known state-agent.^[31] If the interrogation was conducted by a person known by the suspect to be a law enforcement officer the state action requirement is unquestionably met. On the other hand, where a private citizen obtains a statement there is no state action regardless of the custodial circumstances surrounding the statement. A confession obtained through the interrogation by an undercover police officer or a paid informant does not violate Miranda because there is no coercion, no police dominated atmosphere if the suspect does not know that they are being questioned by the police. Private security guards and "private" police present special problems. They are generally not regarded as state-agents. However, an interrogation conducted by a police officer moonlighting as a security guard may well trigger Miranda's safeguards since an officer is considered to be "on duty" at all times.^[32]

Sixth, the evidence is being offered during a criminal proceeding. Under the exclusionary rule, a Miranda-defective statement cannot be used by the prosecution as substantive evidence of guilt. However, the Fifth Amendment exclusionary rule applies only to criminal proceedings. In determining whether a particular proceeding is criminal, the courts look at the punitive nature of the sanctions that could be imposed. Labels are irrelevant. The question is whether the consequences of an outcome adverse to the defendant could be characterized as punishment. Clearly a criminal trial is a criminal proceeding since if convicted the defendant could be fined or imprisoned. However, the possibility of loss of liberty does not make the proceeding criminal in nature. For example, commitment proceedings are not criminal proceedings even though they can result in long confinement because the confinement is considered rehabilitative in nature and not punishment. Similarly, Miranda does not apply directly to probation revocation proceedings because the evidence is not being used as a basis for imposing additional punishment.

Assuming that the six factors are present and Miranda applies, the statement will be subject to suppression unless the prosecution can demonstrate (1) that the suspect was advised of their Miranda rights and (2) that the suspect voluntarily waived those rights or that the circumstances fit an exception to the Miranda rule. The defendant may also be able to challenge the admissibility of the statement under provisions of state constitutions and state criminal procedure statutes.^[33]

The Miranda warnings

The suspect must be properly advised of their Miranda rights—namely, the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination (and, in furtherance of this right, the right to counsel while in custody). The Fifth Amendment right to counsel means that the suspect has the right to consult with an attorney before questioning begins and have an attorney present during the interrogation. The Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination is the right to remain silent—the right to refuse to answer questions or to otherwise communicate information. Therefore, before any interrogation begins, the police must advise the suspect that they have (1) the right to remain silent; (2) that anything the suspect says can be used against him; (3) that the suspect has the right to have an attorney present before and during the questioning and (4) the suspect has the right to have a "free" attorney appointed to represent them before and during the questioning if the suspect cannot afford to hire an attorney.^[34] There is no precise language that must be used in advising a suspect of their Miranda rights.^[35] The point is that whatever language is used the substance of the rights outlined above must be communicated to the suspect.^[36] The suspect may be advised of their rights orally or in writing.^[37]

The Supreme Court has resisted efforts to require officers to more fully advise suspects of their rights. For example, the police are not required to advise the suspect that they can stop the interrogation at any time, that the decision to exercise right cannot be used against the suspect, or that they have a right to talk to a lawyer before being asked any questions. Nor have the courts required to explain the rights. For example, the standard Miranda right to counsel states You have a right to have an attorney present during the questioning. Police are not required to explain that this right is not merely a right to have a lawyer present while the suspect is being questioned. The right to counsel includes:

• the right to talk to a lawyer before deciding whether to talk to police,
• if the defendant decides to talk to the police, the right to consult with a lawyer before being interrogated,
• the right to talk to an attorney while talking to police.^[38]

It is important to reemphasize that the duty to warn only arose when police officers conduct custodial interrogations. The constitution does not require that a defendant be advised of the Miranda rights as part of the arrest procedure, or once officer has probable cause to arrest, or if the defendant has become a suspect of the focus of an investigation, Custody and interrogation are the events that trigger the duty to warn.

Waiver

Simply advising the suspect of their rights does not fully comply with the Miranda rule. The suspect must also voluntarily waive their Miranda rights before questioning can proceed.^[39] An express waiver is not necessary.^[40] However, most law enforcement agencies use written waiver forms which include questions designed to establish that the suspect expressly waived their rights. Typical waiver questions are (1) "Do you understand each of these rights?" and (2) "Understanding each of these rights, do you now wish to speak to the police without a lawyer being present?"

The waiver must be "knowing and intelligent" and it must be "voluntary." These are separate requirements. To satisfy the first requirement the state must show that the suspect generally understood their rights (right to remain silent and right to counsel) and the consequences of forgoing those rights (that anything they said could be used against them in court). To show that the waiver was "voluntary" the state must show that the decision to waive the rights was not the product of police coercion. If police coercion is shown or evident, then the court proceeds to determine the voluntariness of the waiver under the totality of circumstances test focusing on the personal characteristics of the accused and the particulars of the coercive nature of the police conduct. The ultimate issue is whether the coercive police conduct was sufficient to overcome the will of a person under the totality of the circumstances. As noted previously, courts traditionally focused on two categories of factors in making this determination: (1) the personal characteristics of the suspect and (2) the circumstances attendant to the waiver. However, the Supreme Court significantly altered the voluntariness standard in the case of Colorado v. Connelly.^[41] In Connelly the Court held that "Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to a finding that a confession is not 'voluntary' within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."^[42] The Court has applied this same standard of voluntariness is determining whether a waiver of a suspect's Fifth Amendment Miranda rights was voluntary. Thus, a waiver of Miranda rights is voluntary unless the defendant can show that their decision to waive their rights and speak to the police was the product of police misconduct and coercion that overcame the defendant's free will. After Connelly the traditional totality of circumstances analysis is not even reached unless the defendant can first show such coercion by the police.^[43] Under Connelly, a suspect decisions need not be the product of rational deliberations.^[44] In addition to showing that the waiver was "voluntary", the prosecution must also show that the waiver was "knowing" and "intelligent". Essentially this means the prosecution must prove that the suspect had a basic understanding of their rights and an appreciation of the consequences of foregoing those rights. The focus of the analysis is directly on the personal characteristics of the suspect. If the suspect was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or suffered from an emotional or mental condition that substantially impaired their capacity to make rational decisions, the courts may well decide that the suspect's waiver was not knowing and intelligent.

A waiver must also be clear and unequivocal. An equivocal statement is ineffective as a waiver and the police may not proceed with the interrogation until the suspect's intentions are made clear. The requirement that a waiver be unequivocal is to be distinguished from situations in which the suspect makes an equivocal assertion of their Miranda rights after the interrogation has begun. Any post waiver assertion of a suspect's Miranda rights must be clear and unequivocal.^[45] Any ambiguity or equivocation will be ineffective. If the suspect's assertion is ambiguous, the interrogating officers are permitted to ask questions to clarify the suspect's intentions, although they are not required to.^[46] In other words, if a suspect's assertion is ambiguous, the police may either attempt to clarify the suspect's intentions or they may simply ignore the ineffective assertion and continue with the interrogation.^[47] The timing of the assertion is significant. Requesting an attorney prior to arrest is of no consequence because Miranda applies only to custodial interrogations. The police may simply ignore the request and continue with the questioning; however, the suspect is also free to leave.

Assertion

If the defendant asserts his right to remain silent all interrogation must immediately stop and the police may not resume the interrogation unless the police have “scrupulously honored” the defendant’s assertion and obtain a valid waiver before resuming the interrogation.^[48] In determining whether the police “scrupulously honored” the assertion the courts apply a totality of the circumstances test. The most important factors are the length of time between termination of original interrogation and commencement of the second and a fresh set of Miranda warnings before resumption of interrogation.

The consequences of assertion of Fifth Amendment right to counsel are stricter.^[49] The police must immediately cease all interrogation and the police cannot reinitiate interrogation unless counsel is present (merely consulting with counsel is insufficient) or the defendant of his own volition contacts the police.^[50] If the defendant does reinitiate contact, a valid waiver must be obtained before interrogation may resume.

In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Court ruled that a suspect must clearly and unambiguously assert right to silence. Merely remaining silent in face of protracted questioning is insufficient to assert right.

Exceptions

Assuming that the six factors are present, the Miranda rule would apply unless the prosecution can establish that the statement falls within an exception to the Miranda rule.^[51] The three exceptions are (1) the routine booking question exception^[52] (2) the jail house informant exception and (3) the public safety exception.^[53] Arguably only the last is a true exception–the first two can better be viewed as consistent with the Miranda factors. For example, questions that are routinely asked as part of the administrative process of arrest and custodial commitment are not considered "interrogation" under Miranda because they are not intended or likely to produce incriminating responses. Nonetheless, all three circumstances are treated as exceptions to the rule. The jail house informant exception applies to situations where the suspect does not know that he is speaking to a state-agent; either a police officer posing as a fellow inmate, a cellmate working as an agent for the state or a family member or friend who has agreed to cooperate with the state in obtaining incriminating information.^[54] The window of opportunity for the exception is small. Once the suspect is formally charged, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel would attach and surreptitious interrogation would be prohibited.^[55] The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public's safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency.^[56]

Consequences of violation

Assuming that a Miranda violation occurred — the six factors are present and no exception applies — the statement will be subject to suppression under the Miranda exclusionary rule.^[57] That is, if the defendant objects or files a motion to suppress, the exclusionary rule would prohibit the prosecution from offering the statement as proof of guilt. However, the statement can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony.^[58] Further, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply.^[59] Since the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply to Miranda violations, the exclusionary rule exceptions, attenuation, independent source and inevitable discovery, do not come into play. Therefore, derivative evidence would be fully admissible. For example, the police continue with a custodial interrogation after the suspect has asserted his right to silence. During his post-assertion statement the suspect tells the police the location of the gun he used in the murder. Following this information the police find the gun. Forensic testing identify the gun as the murder weapon and fingerprints lifted from the gun match the suspect's. The contents of the Miranda defective statement could not be offered by the prosecution as substantive evidence, but the gun itself and all related forensic evidence would not be subject to suppression.

Procedural requirements

Although the rules vary by jurisdiction, generally a person who wishes to contest the admissibility of evidence^[60] on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights^[61] must comply with the following procedural requirements:

1. The defendant must file a motion.^[62]
2. The motion must be in writing.^[63]
3. The motion must be filed before trial.^[64]
4. The motion must allege the factual and legal grounds on which the defendant seeks suppression of evidence.^[65]
5. The motion must be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence.^[66]
6. The motion must be served on the state.^[62]

Failure to comply with a procedural requirement may result in summary dismissal of the motion.^[62] If the defendant meets the procedural requirement the motion will normally be considered by the judge outside the presence of the jury. The judge hears evidence, determines the facts, makes conclusions of law and enters an order allowing or denying the motion.^[67]

Related doctrines

In addition to Miranda confession may be challenged under the Massiah Doctrine, the Voluntariness Standard, Provisions of Federal and State rules of criminal procedure and State Constitutional provisions.

Massiah Doctrine

The Massiah Doctrine prohibits the admission of a confession obtained in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Specifically, the Massiah rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings deliberately elicited by the police from a defendant after formal charges have been filed. The events that trigger the sixth amendment safeguards under Massiah are (1) the commencement of adversarial criminal proceedings and (2) deliberate elicitation of information from the defendant by governmental agents.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant a right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions. The purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel are to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial and to assure that our adversarial system of justice functions properly by providing competent counsel as an advocate for the defendant in his contest against the “prosecutorial forces” of the state.

The Sixth Amendment right “attaches” once the government has committed itself to the prosecution of the case by the initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings "by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment,".^[68] Determining whether a particular event or proceeding constitutes the commencement of adversarial criminal proceedings requires both an examination of the rules of criminal procedure for the jurisdiction in which the crime is charged and the Supreme Courts cases dealing with the issue of when formal prosecution begins.^[69] Once adversarial criminal proceedings commence the right to counsel applies to all critical stages of the prosecution and investigation. A critical stage is "any stage of the prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where counsel's absence might derogate from the accused's right to a fair trial." ^[70]

Government attempts to obtain incriminating statement related to the offense charged from the defendant by overt interrogation or surreptitious means is a critical stage and any information thus obtained is subject to suppression unless the government can show that an attorney was present or the defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel.^[71]

Deliberate elicitation is defined as the intentional creation of circumstances by government agents that are likely to produce incriminating information from the defendant.^[72] Clearly express questioning (interrogation) would qualify but the concept also extends to surreptitious attempts to acquire information from the defendant through the use of undercover agents or paid informants.^[73]

The definition of "deliberate elicitation" is not the same as the definition of "interrogation" under the Miranda rule. Miranda interrogation includes express questioning and any actions or statements that an officer would reasonably foresee as likely to cause an incriminating response. Massiah applies to express questioning and any attempt to deliberately and intentionally obtain incriminating information from the defendant regarding the crime charged. The difference is purposeful creation of an environment likely to produce incriminating information (Massiah) and action likely to induce an incriminating response even if that was not the officer's purpose or intent (Miranda).

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense specific — the right only applies to post commencement attempts to obtain information relating to the crime charged.^[74] The right does not extend to uncharged offenses even those which are factually related to the charged crime.^[75]

As noted, information obtained in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is subject to suppression unless the government can establish that the defendant waived his right to counsel. The waiver must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary.^[76] A valid Miranda waiver operates as a wavier of Sixth Amendment right.

Miranda and Massiah compared

1. Constitutional Basis – Miranda is based on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Massiah is based on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

2. Attachment – Miranda: Custody + Interrogation. (Charging status irrelevant) Massiah: Formally Charged + Deliberate Elicitation. (Custodial status irrelevant)

3. Scope a. Miranda applies to custodial interrogation by known governmental agents. Surreptitious acquisition of incriminating information allowed. a. Massiah applies to overt and surreptitious interrogation.

b. Miranda is not offense specific.^[77] b. Massiah is offense specific.^[78]

c. Miranda: interrogation + "functional equivalent" c. Massiah: interrogation + "deliberate elicitation"

4. Waiver: Both Miranda and Massiah rights may be waived.

5. Assertion: In each case, the assertion must be clear and unequivocal. The effects of assertion are not identical. For purposes of Miranda, the police must immediately cease the interrogation and cannot resume interrogating the defendant about any offense charged or uncharged unless counsel is present or defendant initiates contact for purposes of resuming interrogation and valid waiver obtained. Because Massiah is offense-specific, an assertion of the sixth amendment right to counsel requires the police to cease interrogating the defendant about any charged offense. Apparently the police could continue questioning the defendant about uncharged crimes assuming that the defendant was not in custody. The defendant's remedy would be to leave or to refuse to answer questions.^[79]

6. Remedy for violation: The remedy for violation of fifth and sixth amendment rights to counsel are identical. The statements and testimonial information is subject to suppression. Derivative evidence is not subject to suppression under Miranda — fruit of poisonous tree doctrine may apply to Massiah violation.^[80] Both Miranda and Massiah defective statements can be used for impeachment purposes.

7. Exceptions: The primary exceptions to Miranda are (1) the routine booking questions exception (2) the jail house informant exception and (3) the public safety exception. In Moulton v. Maine the Supreme Court refused to recognize a public safety exception to the Massiah rule.^[81] Massiah allows for the use of jail house informants provided the informants serve merely as "passive listeners."^[82]

The voluntariness standard

The voluntariness standard applies to all police interrogations regardless of the custodial status of the suspect and regardless of whether the suspect has been formally charged. The remedy for a violation of the standard is complete suppression of the statement and any evidence derived from the statement. The statement cannot be used as either substantive evidence of guilt or to impeach the defendant's testimony.^[83] The reason for the strictness is the common law's aversion to the use of coerced confessions because of their inherent unreliability. Further the rights to be free from coerced confession cannot be waived nor is it necessary that the victim of coercive police conduct assert his right. In considering the voluntariness standard one must consider the Supreme Court's decision in Colorado v. Connelly.^[84] Although federal courts' application of the Connelly rule has been inconsistent and state courts have often failed to appreciate the consequences of the case, Connelly clearly marked a significant change in the application of the voluntariness standard. Before Connelly the test was whether the confession was voluntary considering the totality of the circumstances.^[85] "Voluntary" carried its everyday meaning: the confession had to be a product of the exercise of the defendant's free will rather than police coercion.^[86] After Connelly the totality of circumstances test is not even trigered unless the defendant can show coercive police conduct.^[87] Questions of free will and rational decision making are irrelevant to a due process claim unless police misconduct existed and a causal connection can be shown between the misconduct and the confession.^[88]

State constitutional challenges

Every state constitution has articles and provision guaranteeing individual rights.^[89] In most cases the subject matter is similar to the federal bill of rights.^[90] Most state courts interpretation of their constitution is consistent with the interpretation federal cout's of analogous provisions of the federal constitution. With regard to Miranda issues, state courts have exhibited significant resistance to incorporating into their state jurisprudence some of the limitations on the Miranda rule that have been created by the federal courts.^[91] As a consequence a defendant may be able to circumvent the federal limitation on the Miranda rule and successfully challenge the admissibility under state constitutional provisions. Practically every aspect of the Miranda rule has drawn state court criticism. However the primary point of contention involve the following limitations on the scope of the Miranda rule: (1) the Harris exception^[92] (2) the Burbine rule^[93] and (3) the Fare rule.^[94]

State statutory challenges

In addition to constitutionally based challenge, states permit a defendant to challenge the admissibility of a confession on the grounds that the confession was obtained in violation of a defendnat's statutory rights. For example, North Carolina Criminal Procedure Act permits a defendant to move to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a “substantial” violation of the provision of the North Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Analyzing Miranda

Analyzing Miranda

1. Was the defendant interrogated? a. Was the defendant questioned? OR b. Did the interrogators engage in conduct reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response? Most states followed the fedeeral definition of interrogation Innis rule If “Yes” go to 2; If “No”, Miranda does not apply.
2. Was the interrogation conducted by government agents? If “Yes” go to 3; If “No”, Miranda does not apply.
3. Did the government agents obtain testimonial evidence as a result of the interrogation?If “Yes” go to 4; If “No”, Miranda does not apply.
4. Was the defendant in custody during the interrogation? a. Was the defendant under arrest? OR b. Would a reasonable person in the defendant’s position believe that she was under arrest?If “Yes” go to 5; If “No”, Miranda does not appy.
5. Before any custodial interrogation began did the government agents properly advise the defendant of her Miranda rights?If “Yes” go to 6; If “No”, go to 18..
6. Did the defendant waive her rights?If “Yes” go to 7; If “No”, go to 18.
7. Was the waiver “knowing and intelligent”? If “Yes” go to 8; If “No”, go to 18.
8. Was the waiver “involuntary” a. Was there “police misconduct”? AND b. Did the police misconduct cause the suspect to waive his rights?f “Yes” go to 18; If “No”, go to 9.
9. Did the defendant assert either or both of her rights?If “Yes” go to 10; If “No”, go to 18.
10. Did the defendant assert her right to remain silent?f “Yes” go to 11; If “No”, go to 13.
11. Did the police immediately cease all interrogation?If “Yes” go to 12; If “No”, go to 18.
12. Did the police scrupulously honor the defendant's assertion of his right to remain silent?If “Yes” go to 10; If “No”, go to 18.
13. Did the defendant assert her right to counsel?If “Yes” go to 14; If “No”, go to 18.
14. Did the police immediately cease all interrogation?f “Yes” go to 13; If “No”, go to 18.
15. Did the police resume the interrogation?f “Yes” go to 16; If “No”, Miranda does not apply.
16. Did the defendant re-initiate conduct with the police before the interrogation resumed?If “Yes” go to 17; If “No”, go to 18.
17. Before resuming the custodial interrogation did the police re-advise defendant of her Miranda rights?f “Yes” go Evidence asmissible; If “No”, go to 18.'
18. Does an exception apply? a. Routine Booking Questions? OR b. Jail House Informant? OR c. Public Safety?If “Yes” or “No” go to 19.
19. Was the statement “voluntary” under the due process clause? a. Was there “police misconduct”? b. Did the police misconduct cause the suspect to make a statement? If Yes the statement is admissible for any purpose. If no go to 20.
20. Was the statement “involuntary” under the totality of circumstances test? if yes the statement is not admissible for any purpose. If no the statement is admissible for any purpose.

(Note: if 19a or 19b is answered "NO" that ends the due process analysis - the totality of circumstances test is not reached)

See also

• Berghuis v. Thompkins,
• Berkemer v. McCarty
• Escobedo v. Illinois
• List of criminal competencies
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 384
• Miranda warning
• Schmerber v. California

References

Further reading

• Baker, Liva (1983). Miranda: Crime, law, and politics. New York: Atheneum. ISBN 0689112408. 
• Soltero, Carlos R. (2006). "Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and the rights of the criminally accused". Latinos and American Law: Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. pp. 61–74. ISBN 0292714114. 
• Levy, Leonard W. (1986) [1969]. Origins of the Fifth Amendment (Reprint ed.). New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0029195802. 
• Stuart, Gary L. (2004). Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press. ISBN 0816523134. 
• Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., The Attempted Murder of the Miranda Decision (2001) & A Little Bit of Shooty Face (2003).

External links

• Text of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) is available from:  · Findlaw · Justia · Cornell LII

• Oral arguments from Oyez.org
• Article from Common Sense Americanism on decision