Interrogation refers to express questioning or its "functional equivalent" of a suspect.
A voluntary waiver is "the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception
Miranda defines "as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way
Miranda held that any statement, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, obtained as the result of custodial interrogation could not be used against the suspect in a criminal trial unless the police provide procedural safeguards effective to secure the suspect's PACSI
A valid waiver ay not be presumed simply from the suspect's silence following reading of the Miranda warnings or from the fact that he confessess.
The right to counsel is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment attaches ONLY upon commencement of a criminal proceedings.
Nolo is a part of the Martindale Nolo network, which has been matching clients with attorneys for 100+ years.
If a detainee invokes the right to counsel for only a limited purpose, the police may interrogate "around" that purpose. For example, suppose that, after being Mirandized, Becky doesn't claim her Miranda rights and answers questions.
What it means to "honor" the right to remain silent after a suspect invokes it isn't always entirely clear. Courts consider the circumstances of renewed questioning, including the passage of time, whether the police gave fresh Miranda warnings, and whether they asked questions about a different crime. For example, suppose the police arrest George ...
If Glen invokes his right to counsel while captive in jail and officers return several hours later and begin questioning him again, while he is still in jail, then they have violated Miranda. However, suppose Glen has been serving time in prison when officers first approach him.
A suspect's assertion of the right to counsel ceases to apply if there is a break in incarceration. The assertion of the right doesn't carry over to the next detention. For example, assume Glen invokes his right to counsel and is released from custody.
Generally, the police must immediately stop probing if the detainee invokes either the right to remain silent or the right to counsel. If the suspect invokes the latter, questioning must cease until counsel is available. But if the detainee invokes only the right to remain silent, the police may reinitiate questioning at a later time, provided that they honor the right to remain silent.
A defendant's statements after asserting Miranda may also be admissible if he or she initiates the conversation. But that's only if the police give a fresh set Miranda of warnings once the discussion picks up. For example, assume officers take John into custody and give him the Miranda warnings.
Since each situation is different, courts can consider a broad range of factors in determining whether a custodial interrogation was occurring . They will apply a reasonable person standard, which asks whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s situation would feel that they were free to leave.
In applying the reasonable person standard, a court will use a totality of the circumstances test, taking into account not only physical restraints but also psychological restrictions on the suspect’s freedom of action.
Understanding when law enforcement needs to give Miranda warnings to a suspect involves understanding the concept of custodial interrogation. Unless an exception applies, law enforcement must provide Miranda warnings prior to engaging in any type of custodial interrogation. Most often, the warnings are associated with police questioning ...
Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action. They do not need to be formally arrested, placed in handcuffs, or otherwise physically restrained. Interrogation can go beyond direct questions to comments made by a police officer if the officer should know that the suspect might provide incriminating information in response.
If a suspect initiated the conversation , it is less likely to be considered a custodial interrogation. If they were free to leave after the conversation ended, this also would suggest that they were not in custody. Other factors relate to what the officer said or did. If the officer told the suspect that they did not need to participate in ...
If the officer told the suspect that they did not need to participate in the conversation, it probably was not custodial. Any use of physical force against the suspect strongly supports a finding that the interrogation was custodial, as does any use of physical restraints. (A suspect who suffered injuries during an interaction with ...
Questioning First. Some police believe that individuals are more likely to give voluntary statements if they are questioned without Miranda warnings. To circumvent their duty to give Miranda warnings, police may delay an arrest and question an individual first.