Miranda Warnings Flashcards
Miranda v. Arizona (S. Ct. 1966) (Is an individual’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination violated when he is subject to custodial police interrogation and he has not been specifically informed of his constitutional rights?)
When an individual is taken into custody and is subject to questioning, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination requires that the individual be apprised of his constitutional rights.
Dickerson v. U.S. (S. Ct. 2000) (Dickerson (defendant) was indicted for bank robbery. Dickerson moved to have statements he made during an FBI interrogation suppressed, claiming he never received proper Miranda warnings. The trial court found that Dickerson had not in fact received proper Miranda warnings. However, the court admitted the statement, claiming 18 U.S.C. § 3501 was satisfied.)
Congress cannot legislatively supersede a decision by the United States Supreme Court that interprets and applies the Constitution. A Miranda violation does constitute a Fifth Amendment violation.
Rhode Island v. Innis (S. Ct. 1980) (Has a suspect been “interrogated” for the purpose of Miranda where he is in a car with police officers who are expressing their concern about public safety?)
Under Miranda, “interrogation” refers to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.
New York v. Quarles (S. Ct. 1984) (Is there a public safety exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s statements may be admitted into evidence at trial?)
The police may question a suspect without first reading a suspect his Miranda warnings, and the suspect’s statements may be admitted at trial, where the exigency of a situation requires that public safety take precedence over a suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege.
Berkemer v. McCarty (S. Ct. 1984) (During a routine traffic stop, is a motorist subject to custodial interrogation for the purpose of the Miranda doctrine?)
While a person in custody who is suspected of a misdemeanor traffic offense must be read his Miranda warnings, a motorist temporarily detained on the side of the road after being pulled over by an officer is not “in custody” for the purpose of Miranda.
Pennsylvania v. Muniz (S. Ct. 1990) (“[W]hether various incriminating utterances of a drunken-driving suspect, made while performing a series of sobriety tests, constitute testimonial responses to custodial interrogation for purposes of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”)
Routine Booking Questions = ok w/o Miranda bad on the totality of the circumstances
Non-Routine Booking Qs (“Do you know what the date was of your sixth birthday?”) = not routine, thus his answer is inadmissible.
The way he answered the non-routine question is admissible (slurred speech) because it’s not testimonial.
J.D.B. v. North Carolina (S. Ct. 2011) (Police suspected J.D.B. (defendant), a 13-year-old, of involvement in house break-ins. The police pulled him out of school and questioned him about the break-ins without giving him Miranda warnings. He confessed to the break-ins during this questioning.)
The age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to whether the child is in custody under Miranda.
Florida v. Powell (S. Ct. 2010) (Does the failure to provide explicit advice of right to presence of counsel during questioning invalidate Miranda warnings that advise both a) right to talk to a lawyer “before questioning” and b) the right to consult a lawyer “at any time during the questioning?”)
No. While Miranda requires that a suspect “be warned prior to any questioning” and “that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, “it does not dictate the words in which the essential information must be conveyed. Rather, to determine whether police warnings are satisfactory, the inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably conveyed to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda.
Miranda is based on which amendment?
The Fifth
Confessions can be inadmissible under:
14th/5th Amendment (Due Process); 5th Amendment (Miranda); 6th (Right to Counsel)
