INTERROGATIONS AND THE 5TH AMENDMENTS SELF INCRIMINATION CLAUSE

Question 1

• MIRANDA

Answer 1

o Any incriminating statement obtained as the result of custodial interrogation may not be used against the suspect at a subsequent trial unless the police provided procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination

Question 2

o Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 2

 Prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendant unless it demonstrates sufficient procedural safeguards to protect privilege against self-incrimination

Question 3

 Safeguards must consist of a warning, prior to any questioning, that the suspect (SAAA):

Answer 3

• Has the right to remain silent
• Anything he says can be used against him in a court of law
• He has the right to the presence of an attorney
• If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning of he so desires

Question 4

 New York v. Quarles

Answer 4

• Police follow gunman into grocery store. When detained, the gun was gone. The officer asked, without providing Miranda warnings, “where is the gun?”
• HELD: Statement is admissible under public safety exception, where a reasonable officer would believe that quick and narrow questions are necessary to protect either officers or the public

Question 5

 Oregon v. Elstad

Answer 5

• 18 year old suspect makes initial incriminating statements to police at home, followed by a Mirandized confession at the station
• HELD: later confession was admissible
  o Miranda violations are not constitutional violations, so strict fruit of the poisonous tree analysis does not apply
  o Subsequent administration of Miranda warnings usually will suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement

Question 6

o Custody

Answer 6

 Miranda custody exists when a reasonable person would believe their freedom of action has been curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest
 Would a reasonable person have felt that he or she was at liberty to leave?

Question 7

 Berkemer v. McCarty

Answer 7

• Trooper, suspecting driver of drunk driving, questions him at roadside, then formally arrests him and questions him again at station
• HELD: Miranda applies to persons suspected of misdemeanors rather than more serious crimes
• HELD: custody for purposes of Miranda does not exist at a traffic stop, because a reasonable person would not have felt that his right against self-incrimination was sufficiently impaired

Question 8

• Some relevant factors for determining Miranda custody (LDSRR):

Answer 8

o Location of questioning
o Duration of questioning
o Statements made
o Presence or absence of physical restraints
o Release of interviewee at end of questioning

Question 9

o Interrogation

Answer 9

 Interrogation is words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect

Question 10

• WAIVER

Answer 10

o Waivers can be expressed or implied
o Waivers must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent

Question 11

 Massiah v. US

Answer 11

• Massiah was arrested on drug smuggling charges. While he’s out on bail, federal agents place a wire in his co-conspirator’s car, and listens to conversations in which Massiah incriminates himself
• The Supreme court holds that the 6th amendment guarantees an accused the right to counsel once adversarial proceedings have begun, that is, after his indictment. Messiah’s right to counsel was violated because police had deliberately elicited statements from him when the right to counsel had already attached; it didn’t matter that Massiah was unaware he was being questioned, and wasn’t in custody
• After arrest there’s no custody requirement