Pg 26 Flashcards
What is interrogation as a part of Miranda?
Express questioning or words/actions that are the functional equivalent of an interrogation that a reasonable cop would know were likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Does Miranda apply to routine booking questions?
No, it only applies to testimonial evidence.
Does Miranda apply to things from the suspect that are incriminating such as blood, hair, DNA, lineups, putting on gloves in front of a jury, etc?
No, because it only applies to testimonial evidence
Once a suspect is in custody, what do the police have to do before they can interrogate?
They must give a Miranda warning
Does interrogation have to involve direct questioning?
No, words and actions that are likely to elicit an incriminating response are enough
What is essentially an interrogation?
A police dominated atmosphere that essentially forces the suspect to give into the desires of the interrogator
Is silence by a police officer that is not likely to elicit an incriminating response likely to be considered an interrogation?
No
If the police arrested a suspect who asked why and the police officer didn’t answer, then the suspect volunteered an incriminating statement, would the police officer’s silence be considered an interrogation?
No
If the police were aware of a particular vulnerability of a suspect and they exploited it through tricky questioning, is that considered to be an interrogation?
Their knowledge is imputed to a reasonable officer’s knowledge to decide if an interrogation has occurred
If police were talking in front of a defendant about a handicapped school and a gun, and they had no reason to think that the defendant would care about children, would that be considered to be interrogation?
No
If police were talking in front of a defendant about a handicapped school and gun and they knew that the defendant’s child went to that school, what happens to that knowledge of the defendant’s vulnerability?
It is imputed to a reasonable cop
When is the only time that police intent is relevant to determine if an interrogation has occurred?
To show that the police knew or should have known that their words and actions were likely to evoke an incriminating response. Otherwise the suspect’s perception is all that matters
What is the reasoning for a jail plant not triggering Miranda if the suspect doesn’t know that the person questioning him is a cop?
Because there is no inherent coercion here
How is coercion determined for Miranda?
From the perspective of the suspect, so if he thinks that he is talking to a cellmate and not to a jail plant, there is no coercion
Why are routine booking questions exempt from Miranda?
Because they only secure biographical information that is needed to complete the booking and the questions are reasonably related to the cop’s administrative concerns
What are the two important limits on interrogation for Miranda?
– due process voluntariness doctrine
– sixth amendment right to counsel
What is the functional equivalent test for Miranda?
This prohibits all speech or conduct that is the functional equivalent of direct questioning. This is words or actions of police beyond those normally attendant to arrest or custody they should know are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses from the defendant. If there is no express questioning, consider whether what was said amounts to its functional equivalent
If a defendant is arrested for killing a taxi driver, is mirandized, and asks to speak to an attorney, if he was then put in a police car with three cops and driven to the station, and while driving the cops discussed that a handicapped kid might find a gun, what are the two types of the functional equivalent test?
– Innis Majority: the intent of the police officers is only relevant to show if they should have known that their words or actions were reasonably likely to get an incriminating response. It is not an interrogation because they didn’t have any reason to know that it would elicit an incriminating response. The focus is on the perceptions of the suspect, not the intent of the police. Although if the police have knowledge of unusual susceptibility of the defendant to a particular type of persuasion, that is an important factor to see if they should have known that their words or actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
– Stevens Dissent: interrogation includes any cop statement or conduct that has the same purpose or effect as direct questions
What is the objective observer test for Miranda?
If an objective observer with the same knowledge as the suspect would, just by hearing the cop’s remarks, infer that it was designed to get an incriminating response, that is an interrogation.
If a defendant is arrested for drunk driving and he’s asked basic booking questions but his answers are so slurred that it showed he was drunk, would that be suppressed for the person not having been mirandized first?
No, because Miranda rules don’t apply to incriminating responses that are not testimonial. Here the slurred speech and lack of coordination is a non-testimonial part of the response
How do you know if an incriminating response is testimonial so that Miranda applies?
If the suspect is asked for a response that requires an express or implied assertion of fact or belief, his answers are testimonial.
If police officers arrived to the scene of a crime and ask someone what happened, is that a testimonial response?
No because answers to those kinds of things are essentially volunteered and not the result of custodial interrogation
If police use physical evidence or make accusations or use confessions of an accomplice, is that considered to be an interrogation?
Yes
If police put two suspects into the same room and then listen to the conversation, is that considered to be an interrogation?
Yes
