CP Ch. 22- Custodial Interrogation Under the Fifth Amendment & Miranda Flashcards
In the landmark case of Miranda V Arizona, the Supreme Court adopted rules designed to protect and accused’s :
Fifth Amendment rights.
The Miranda Warnings inform the suspect that: (5)
- He has the right to remain silent;
- His statements can be used as evidence against him;
- He has the right to counsel;
- If he is indigent; counsel will be furnished to him at the government’s expense; and
- He may stop questioning at any time, for any reason.
Note: The last standard (#5) was not required by the original Miranda decision, but has become the standard over time in Massachusetts.
Properly distinguishing when Miranda applies is essential. If officers fails to provide warnings when necessary:
a court will suppress the defendant’s statements.
Miranda warnings are only required when a person is: (2)
1.in custody; and
- subjected to interrogation.
“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”
Custodial Interrogation.
Custody exists when the suspect is either: (2)
- Under arrest; or
- Significantly detained.
Interrogation occurs if: (1) A law enforcement officer; (2):
(2) Communicates with the suspect by either:
-Express questioning; or
- The functional equivalent of express questioning;
- in an effort to obtain testimonial evidence.
Note: If one of these elements is absent, Miranda warnings are not required and the admissibility of a statement depends solely on whether it was voluntary.
It is important for officers to know when suspects are in custody because, at that moment, they may not:
question them without Miranda warnings.
Miranda:
In court, the defendant must prove that he was in custody at the time police interviewed him. The police then “bear the heavy burden” to prove:
the defendant waived his rights.
True or false:
When officers arrest a suspect, that person is always in custody for Miranda.
True.
*Custody also occurs when a suspect is significantly detained.
When officers arrest a suspect, that person is always in custody for Miranda. Custody also occurs when a suspect is significantly detained.- This occurs when:
a seizure has the qualities of an arrest- without actually being one.
Comm Vs Groome provided the four factors that courts use to determine whether an unarrested suspect was in Miranda Custody: (4)
(Groom factors= think LIFF)
Groome Factors:
- Location - does the interrogation take place in a police dominated atmosphere?
- Interview style- is the style of the interview aggressive?
- Focus- do officers clearly accuse the suspect of a crime?
- Freedom to leave- Is the suspect free to end the interview by leaving the place of interrogation or by asking officers to leave?
Miranda: Location of the interrogation:
Is a police station often custodial?
Yes.
ex. “within that atmosphere” the investigator “possessed all the advantages”- Courts continue to recognize the station as the prime location for physical and psychological pressure
Comm vs Groome:
Were statements made to investigators admissible despite the investigators downplaying Groome’s need for a lawyer?
Yes.
SJC, in this particular case, found that Groome was not in custody when he asked about his need for a lawyer. Therefore, the Miranda safeguards- including the right to counsel- had not yet attached.
Miranda:
Is the back of a cruiser typically custodial?
Yes.
ex. Two women were assaulted and robbed during the day. They identified the defendant Jones to a nearby officer. The officer asked defendant to sit in the back of his cruiser. With the victims repreating their accusations and Jones denying them, the officer began asking him questions. Jones attempted to leave, but the officer shut the door (which could not be opened from the inside). Although the officers tone was conversational, the overall circumstances created a custodial situation. The officer should have provided Miranda warnings.
Interrogations/ interviews at the suspects home are usually noncustodial.
Are there cases where interrogations at the suspects home are custodial, and thus require miranda?
Yes.
ex. Individual notified police when he found child pornography on a personal computer he bought from Brian Rogers. Local police enlisted the help of the state police and, because rogers was a noncommissioned officer, the Naval Criminal Investigative Services. (NCIS)
NCIS requested that Rogers commander order him to return home. Upon arrival, Rogers found three officers questioning his pregnant wife. Although he was told he would not be arrested, Rogers was under a military order to be at home. Any member of the armed forces would has felt he lacked the freedom to leave and was compelled to answer questions. Rogers was in custody for Miranda, and his statements were obtained illegally because he never received proper warnings.
Business premises not necessarily custodial: a suspect is not in custody merely because police officers search his business premises with a warrant. Their search of the business does not make the encounter custodial, as long as police do not: (2)
-curtail the suspect’s movements, or
-use threatening language.
Prison or jail not necessarily custodial: For an inmate to be in custody for Miranda, there must be :
some additional restraint on his freedom that prevents him from leaving the scene of questioning.
- in other words, the prisoner must be in custody beyond the confines of ordinary prison life.
Does police interview style affect whether Miranda custody exists?
Yes.
Conversational and non aggressive
Vs
Aggressive and accusatory
Does custody automatically exist when a suspect confesses?
No.
-Courts assess whether there was a “fundamental change in the atmosphere.”
Ex. Initially the defendant’s son was the suspect in an arson that killed 5 people. Kathleen Hilton, his mother, voluntarily accompanied police to the station and was calmy questioned. The SJC insisted that she was still not in custody when she confessed, because th investigator wisely continued his nonconfrontational approach (“tell me more.. you sound upsets..etc”)
The setting did becomes custodial, however, when a detective from the Fire Marshall’s officer entered then room. His accusatory, rapid fire questions transformed the interview. This detective made a mistake by not providing Miranda warnings. Hilton’s statements during this portion of the interview were suppressed.
Is an officer’s uncommunicated suspicion a factor of custody for miranda?
No. It is never a factor.
Ex. Officer knew he had probable cause and would be arresting the suspect for OUI, but still asked him to perform field sobriety tests without giving him Miranda. This is valid.
*However, a clear accusation typically does create custody
As soon as police interviewers obviously accuse their suspect, officer must administer:
Miranda warnings.
A clear accusation typically does create Miranda.
ex custody began when detective changed his conversational style and accused Molina of lying about a shooting.
What is the best way for officers to avoid “custody” for purposes of Miranda?
Tell the suspect he is free to leave.
Does being detained, without more, typically create Miranda custody?
No.
Ex. Comm Vs Tejada (killed wife and kids case)
Explain each Groome factor for Miranda: (LIFF)
- Location
- Interview style
- Focus
- Freedom to leave.
- Does the interrogation take place in a police- dominated atmosphere?
- Is the style of the interview aggressive?
- Do officer clearly accuse the suspect of a crime?
- Is the suspect free to end the interview by leaving the place of interrogation or by asking officers to leave?
Jose Tejada approached a stranger in his neighborhood and asked to be taken to the police because he killed 3 people. Neighbor called police instead.
Tejada repeated to police what he had told his neighbor, and added that he tried to kill himself. He was asked about the location of the shooting and what he did with the weapon. He seemed anxious but cooperative.
The officers frisked and handcuffed Tejada, then took him to the address he provided. Receiving no answer when they knocked, officers broke down the door to see if anyone needed assistance.Tejada’s wife and two children were found shot to death upstairs.
Were officers required to give Tejada Miranda when they first spoke with him?
No. Although certain statements after Tejada was handcuffed and placed in the cruiser were suppressed, officers were not required to give miranda when they first spoke with him. In reviewing the Groome factors, the SJC found the police questioning was non-custodial:
- The location was non-coercive (sat on a curb in a public parking lot)
- The interview questions were open. (What happened? Who did you kill? Where do you live? why did you do it? where is the gun?
- The focus (of the questions) were not on Tejada as a suspect: The officers did not accuse him.
- Free to leave: Of course Tejada was detained, but this one factor is typically not enough for Miranda custody. Tejada’s possible intoxication and suicidal thoughts did not make his statements involuntary either. Tejada had no difficulty understanding or speaking.
When officers arrive on scene, do officers need to provide blanket warnings of Miranda to citizens?
No.
ex. “shes been shot, better call and ambulance”
cop: What happened?
“she was going to throw me out so i shot her.”
No miranda necessary there
Most investigative detentions do not result in Miranda custody because they fall short of being:
an arrest or a significant detention.
Most investigative detentions do not result in Miranda custody because they fall short of being an arrest or a significant detention.
As a result, officers may detain suspects and avoid Miranda warnings, provided they: (3)
- Ask a reasonable number of questions to learn about the suspects identity and whether he committed a crime.
- Understand that the suspect is not obligated to answer; and
- Release him after a reasonable amount of time if probable cause has not developed.
Note on reasonable amount of time: There is no set time period for a detention. It must take no longer than necessary to investigate the circumstances giving rise to the officers suspicions.
Comm Vs Cawthron:
Detectives see hand to hand. $300 oxy pills sold for $600
Findings:
Detective were not required to initially give the defendants Miranda warniings. The defendants were not told they were suspected of a crime, and their discussions were one- on -one in an open, public space. The fact that they were arrested at the end of the interview did not mean they had been in custody.
When an investigative detention involves arrest-like restraint- e.g. handcuffs, drawn weapon, or prone positioning- Miranda custody (blank):
exists.
Miranda safeguards apply as soon as a suspect’s freedom is “curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest.”
Officers should rarely advise motorists of their Miranda rights because most traffic stops are: (2)
brief and public.
The same rules for investigative detentions apply roadside.Officers may ask a reasonable number of questions.
Should officers give Miranda rights to motorists before directing them to perform sobriety tests, including reciting the alphabet?
No.
Is restraint for medical treatment custody for Miranda?
No.
Ex. accident scene, defendant said he had too much to drink to an EMT. The EMT told an officer, who approached defendant as he was being loaded into an ambulance, strapped to a gurney. Defendant admitted to officer that alcohol had affected his driving. No Miranda warnings were given. Since the physical restraint was not applied by law enforcement, a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have understood that he was being detained due to his medical condition. The questioning was brief and occurred in public with EMT’s present, which lessened the possibility of police domination. The officer also did not tell the defendant he was a suspect.
Pre-arrest handcuffing will usually create miranda custody. However: during a traffic stop, the defendant approached the officer- in an agitated state- despite directions to get back in his car. The officer handcuffed the defendant, telling him it was for the officer’s safety, and asking “Whats happening?”. This general question, despite the handcuffs:
was not custodial interrogation under these circumstances.
Is a telephone conversation between an officer and a suspect, on a recorded line from the police station, considered custodial for miranda.
No. Never.
suspects freedom is not affected because he can always just hang up
Undercover officers do not need to provide miranda warnings because their targets experience the opposite of:
police coercion.
What is Miranda’s “essential ingredient”
a police- dominated atmosphere
Interrogation exists when officers engage in questioning (or its functional equivalent) to get:
testimonial evidence.
Express questions directly ask for information about:
a crime.
Ex. questions at scene- “Where do you live?”- should have been preceded by miranda BECAUSE police were trying to link defendant to drugs in the apartment)
Express questions directly ask for information about a crime. On the other hand, when a suspect speaks without being questioned, his statement is:
not the product of interrogation.
Comments that police are lawfully in a position to overhear are not prompted by questioning. Therefore, they do not have to be preceded by:
Miranda warnings.
ex. troopers, helping the defendant make a phone call after booking him for drug distribution, overheard him say to his wife: “I got busted. They got most of it”.
The (blank) of interrogation covers words or actions that the police know are likely to produce an incriminating response.
“functional equivalent”
Four examples of the “functional equivalent” of interrogation:
- Stage police conversations
- Provocative police comments (that entice a suspect to incriminate himself= interrogation)
- Displaying object
- Forcing a meeting between co- defendants
Functional equivalents of interrogation: Staged police conversations
“Christian burial speech” as officers transported suspect who has already expressed his right to counsel and officers agreed with his attorney not to question him.
Proper or improper?
Improper.
speech was a functional equivalent
- the officers comments had the same effect as direct questioning because they were designed to elicit an incriminating response. Defendant’s statements were suppressed.
Functional equivalents of interrogation: Staged police conversations
While transporting suspect, who had expressed his right to remain silent, Officer says to partner in conversation, that he hopes a child doesn’t find the murder weapon before police can locate it. Defendant hears this, then confesses and then leads police to the gun.
Was this admission induced by police?
No.
Court found that this brief exchange did not amount to interrogation because the officers did not intend to trigger Innis conscience.
Functional equivalents of interrogation: provocative police comments
In a holding cell: Defendant said:
“the bitch did it”Officer responded “ you mean to tell me that there were two dudes in the car and the girl did the stabbing? suspect responded” Yeah, why not? what just because shes a girl she can;t stab someone?”
The first statement,”the bitch did it” was spontaneous. However,the officer should have known that his response was likely to:
provoke and incriminating response.
Functional equivalents of interrogation: provocative police comments
Foley was arrested for beating his wife. While in handcuffs in the cruiser, he was screaming. An officer commented, “Are you having a rough day man?” In response, Foley yelled, “I choked her our, but she deserved it!”
Valid or invalid?
Valid
the officers question was designed to calm Foley, not to incriminate him.
Functional equivalents of interrogation: Displaying Object
police executed a search warrant at Rubio’s apartment. Officers arrested Rubio and, without saying anything, held an open female purse filled with cocaine in front of Rubio’s face as they were leading him out of the apartment. Rubio immediately said the drugs belonged to him and not his girlfriend. This display was:
the equivalent of an accusatory police question (as if saying “How do you explain this?”)- so it needed to be preceded by Miranda warnings.
Functional equivalents of interrogation: Forcing a meeting between co-defendants:
Defendant Brant refused to speak with police, so officers told Brant that his co-defendant had just implicated him. They then put him in a room with his accomplice. Afterwards, Brant confessed. The court:
disapproved because investigators had used and indirect form of interrogation as an “end run” around Brant’s right to silence.
Miranda uphold the privilege against (blank), which only applies to testimonial evidence.
self incrimination.
Miranda uphold the privilege against self incrimination, which only applies to:
testimonial evidence.
*Miranda does not cover police action designed to obtain nontestimonial evidence (DNA samples, Field Sobriety Tests, Voice and Handwritting exemplars, Gun License- “produce your LTC”)
Miranda does not cover police action designed to obtain nontestimonial evidence. This includes: (2)
- Physical evidence
And/or
- Statements by the accused that do not assert his knowledge or beliefs
Is ordering a suspect to produce his gun license considered testimonial?
No. It is NONtestimonial
Obtaining physical evidence is nontestimonial because it does not force the suspect to:
reveal his thoughts.
Obtaining physical evidence is nontestimonial because it does not force the suspect to reveal his thoughts.
4 examples of physical nontestimonial evidence:
- DNA samples
- Field Sobriety Tests
- Voice and handwriting exemplars
- Gun License (ordering a suspect to produce his gun license)
Physical nontestimonial evidence:
Important point: Police may use reasonable force to perform non-intrusive tests over an arrestees objects- as long as they do not later:
testify to his refusal.
** The Fifth Amendment and Article 12 do not protect against the production of physical evidence- e.g, firearms residue, fingerprints, DNA, etc.- where the goal of the test is to obtain evidence independent of the suspect’s thoughts. Officers can use”reasonable force” to obtain this (provided they already have probable cause)
However, the Fifth Amendment and article 12 DO prevent officers from testifying at trial that the defendant refused to cooperate with police- since no-cooperation DOES reveal the defendant’s inner thoughts about his ability to pass an evidence gathering test.
Verbal nontestimonial evidence
When and officer’s questions are not designed to produce testimonial evidence, Miranda warning are unnecessary:
3 examples:
- Consent (requesting consent to search is not interrogation)
- Alphabet sobriety tests
- Post- arrest identification.
Routine booking questions about one identity- e.g. address, cocial security numbers, date of birth- seek nontestimonial information, so Miranda does not apply.
What is a booking question that is possibly testimonial?
employment.
Verbal non testimonial evidence:
During booking, the defendant was asked a routine question, “Are you injured?” He only said that he had been hit on the side of the head. This statement was important evidence at trial to justify stabbing the victim by claiming severe injuries. Since his booking response produced incriminating information, the defendant insisted that he should have been given Miranda Warnings.
This booking question was:
clearly non testimonial.
The defendant’s physical well being is important to the police in all arrests because they are liable for a prisoner’s medical condition.
True or false?
When public safety is at stake, officers may briefly interrogate a suspect in custody without administering Miranda warnings.
True.
The Public Safety Exception to Miranda:
Audiobooks: Author calls the Public safety Exception the “blank” exception
the “Wheres the gun!?” exception
