Miranda v. Arizona: A Primer

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA: A PRIMER

Constitutional Foundations of Miranda

The Miranda case dealt with the admissibility of statements made during "custodial interrogation" under the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel. Under Miranda, prior to interrogation, a person in custody must be told of the right to remain silent and the likelihood that statements made by the person will be used against him or her in court. Recognizing that the average citizen might not understand which statements are incriminating or how they might be used in court, the Supreme Court requires persons in custody to be told of their right to an attorney. The Court saw an obvious connection between the two amendments—statements made without counsel tended to self-incriminate (protected by the Fifth Amendment) and the right to counsel (protected by the Sixth Amendment) was not particularly helpful once the incriminating statements had been made.

When the Miranda rules are not followed, statements are excluded for three reasons: (1) to avoid the risk that statements were compelled in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights; (2) to encourage officers to comply with the Miranda rules, thereby lessening the future likelihood of compelled self-incrimination; and (3) to discourage the kinds of unsavory police practices that tended to "compel" confessions from suspects.

The Constitution does not explicitly require such warnings or the exclusion of statements given in the absence of such warnings. However, a majority of the Court viewed custodial interrogations as inherently coercive and feared that the absence of a warning requirement and exclusionary rule (the rule that excludes the evidence from being used at trial under most circumstances) would render the Fifth Amendment meaningless. Textualists, those advocating a strictly text-based interpretation of the Constitution, criticize this methodology as judicial "creation" of rights.

Analytical Approaches to Miranda: Is Miranda Applicable?

Miranda does not apply unless a person is in custody and subjected to official interrogation.

1. Was the suspect in custody?

Definitions

Custody requires a "significant deprivation of liberty."

A person is in custody only if he or she is subjected to either formal arrest or its functional equivalent.

Formal arrest – occurs when a person is explicitly told he or she is being placed under arrest.

Functional equivalent – occurs when a suspect's freedom of action is significantly curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest.

Objective vs. Subjective Analysis

The custody issue is most difficult when evaluating functional equivalents of arrests. From whose perspective do we evaluate whether the suspect's freedom of action is significantly curtailed? There are three possible approaches:

The particular suspect involved (subjective analysis)

Did this particular suspect actually believe that he or she was not free to leave?

This approach is most favorable to suspects, but suspects will always argue that they believed they were not free to leave.

That particular officer(s) involved (subjective analysis) –

Did the actual officer(s) involved intend to restrict the suspect's freedom of movement?

This approach is most deferential to the officers, who will always argue that they did not intend to restrict the suspect's freedom of movement.

A reasonable person under the same conditions of the suspect (objective analysis) –

Would a reasonable person under the same circumstances believe he or she was free to leave? (In other words: what would an average or typical member of the community think under the same circumstances? – the idea being that it gets the court out of the business of trying to figure out what this particular person thought.)

This approach creates a body of law that allows some predictability to determine whether custody was established in the situation.

The Court has chosen to use this third approach – the objective analysis.

2. Did a known government agent¹ interrogate the suspect?

Definitions:

"Interrogation" includes any direct questioning by officers about a crime under investigation and more subtle forms of questioning that are the "functional equivalent" of direct questioning.

The "functional equivalent" of direct questioning is any speech or actions by an officer that she should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

Determining the "functional equivalent"

In determining whether an officer's words or actions constituted the "functional equivalent" of direct questioning, several principles should be considered:

Reasonably likely: Courts will deem it "interrogation" only if officers knew (subjective analysis) or should have known (objective analysis) and incriminating response was reasonably likely.

NOTE: What the officer should have known is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation.

Officer's intent: Courts will probably consider it to be "interrogation" if the officer actually intended that his words or conduct would elicit an incriminating response.

Officer's knowledge of the suspect: Courts will usually treat it as "Interrogation" if an officer was aware of – and exploited –: a suspect's unusual weakness or fear.

Link between the question and crime: Courts will be more apt to deem a question "interrogation" if there was direct link between the question and the crime under investigation.

Accusations: Accusing a suspect of committing a crime is virtually always "interrogation" because an incriminating response is reasonably foreseeable.

NOTE that subtle actions by the officer, statements to suspects, and conversations in the presence of suspects which were meant to elicit a particular response, may be deemed interrogation. However, spontaneous statements volunteered by the suspect are NOT considered the product of interrogation even if the suspect was in custody at the time.

___________________________
¹ Even if the person is in custody, Miranda only applies if the suspect was interrogated by known government agents.

A Miranda Checklist

Step #1 - Was the person "in custody"?

Was there a formal arrest?
- If yes — Step #2
- If no — Analyze functional equivalent at Step #1(b)
If there was no formal arrent, would a reasonable suspect in the same situation have believed he or she was not free to leave?
- If yes — Step #2
- If no — No custody; Miranda does not apply

Step #2 - If the person was in custody, was the person "interrogated" by an official?

Given the officer's knowledge of the suspect, did the officer know his or her questions or statements were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response?
- If yes — Miranda applies
- If no — Analyze whether the officer should have known at Step #2(b)
Would a "resonable officer" under the same circumstance and with the same knowledge of the suspect have known that an incriminating response was reasonably likely?
- If yes — Miranda applies
- If no — Miranda does not apply