Custodial Interrogation Paper

A person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefit of the procedural safeguards enunciated in Miranda, regardless of the nature or severity of the offense of which he is suspected or for which he was

The case Miranda v. Arizona that took place in 1963 changed the way police officer question/interrogate their suspect. Back in those days, police officers used to get away with interrogating suspects without informing them of their constitutional rights until the Miranda case came about. Concerning the Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that by detaining suspects before questioning they must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination (“Miranda v. Arizona,” 2006). In the year 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The police officers that arrested him begin to question him without informing him of his constitutional rights to an attorney

Issues: “Does interrogation without informing the accused of their right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination violate his/her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights?”

In the landmark court case, Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that when a person is taken into custody of the police, or has been deprived of their freedom of action in any significant way, they must be advised of their constitutional rights. Reason being is because the court realized that in custodial interrogations, the compulsion for a person to potentially incriminate their self is apparent. Therefore, without proper safeguards, the process of custodial interrogation would compel an individual to speak where they would otherwise not do so freely. In the years following Miranda, there has been considerable controversy regarding the extent of Miranda’s prophylactic shield, and under what circumstances the safeguards of Miranda will apply to juveniles.

Because of the Miranda v Arizona case every officer before starting an interrogation has to repeat the person’s rights and wait until they receive either a verbal or written confirmation from the defendant saying they understand that they have the right to remain silent. Even if the officers tell the defendant their rights they have to be done properly or else whatever evidence they get from their interrogation cannot be used in court.

had the right to maintain silence and “right to have an attorney present during the interrogation”.

The intense environment can be seen as a threat to an individual’s protection against self-incrimination. The standard proceedings for an interrogation are typically meant to elicit a confession to some degree. The Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation from 1956 outlines the classic interrogation method. It states that “the subject should be deprived of every psychological advantage” and the investigator “must dominate his subject and overwhelm him with his inexorable will to obtain the truth” (Document F). These instructions make it an unfair circumstance for the accused. If investigators are trained to undermine and manipulate people into giving confessions, then no statement made during an interrogation is without coercion or some form of outside opinion. In Miranda v Arizona, Miranda’s lawyer argued that his client underwent this type of interrogation and therefore, the court could not use his confession. In such an intimidating atmosphere, Ernesto Miranda thought he had no choice but to answer questions that would incriminate him. He also was unaware that he could speak with an attorney to help protect him and his rights. The court rulings and instating of the Miranda Rights helped to make sure that this scenario would not happen again. The Miranda Rights, or Miranda Warning, outlines the rights

“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise

In examining the following two cases I will demonstrate that the US Supreme Court is consistent in recognizing an individual’s 4th and 5th Amendment rights. What’s more, we will look at what constitutes a successful interrogation. Questioning the state of mind and intent on the part of law enforcement during an interrogation and ask if that intent is in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights.

A person in custody shouldn’t be given their Miranda warnings before being asked consent to search because the arresting officer(s) aren’t supposed to expect the defendant to know these rights. Moreover, they have not begun the interrogation which is one of the requirements for reading of the Miranda warnings. The defendant is not free to go when under custodial interrogation, but is when obtaining a consent to search which is why there are no elaborate

The Supreme Court founded their decision on the Fifth Amendment rather than the Sixth Amendment due to the intimidating nature of the custodial interrogation by law enforcement. No admission could be permissible under the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had relinquished their rights. The person in custody must, prior to being questioned be clearly informed of their right to remain silent and that whatever they say will be held against them in court. They must be informed that they have the right to consult with an attorney and that

With the warning also being so common in the media, the actual meaning and representation of the warning is mostly lost to many suspects not fully understanding what its full meaning is. They may not be of sound mind or they may even be too emotional to grasp its meaning that it is their rights to use and exercise. Whatever be the case, the individual’s emotional and mental state plays a huge part in how they comprehend what is going on. In most cases, the reading of the warning is crucial to how the suspect interprets it. If the officer states it angrily, the suspect may be too intimidated to understand that they have been told their rights rather than if the officer were to state it calmly and in a mild tone. Most individuals also come from a background where they do not possess enough familiarity with the law or the Constitution to be able to exercise these rights (Galatzer-Levy & Galatzer-Levy, 2012). Shortly after the Miranda decision came into being, its value questioned as to whether it would be of use to everyday law enforcement. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that in his opinion concerning the Miranda case, "cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime." The court’s ruling that all interrogations involve the “application of state power” has had the effect that some police officers will go to drastic measures to obtain the confession that they so desire (Zalman & Smith, 2007). The suspect may also decide to waive their rights. Since there is not a standard rule in place regarding the waiver, some states have decided that the best way they can handle it would be to have the suspect sign a waiver form

As we get to understand the Sixth Amendment and the impact it has on individuals who are subject to interrogation and their own confessions to a crime, we have to wonder why it is so important for us to understand our rights. There are a few ways that our verbal statements could be used against us once we are placed into an interrogation room and questioned, but why do we put so much emphasis on the important of these types of statements? Before we can explain how the sixth amendments can impact interrogations’ and confessions we first have to understand that before the Sixth Amendment can come in to play, the Fifth Amendment is the one that setup the Sixth Amendment to be addressed,

You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda

Pretrial detention according to Black’s Law Dictionary is “the holding of a defendant before trial on criminal charges either because the established bail could not be posted or because release was denied.” (Garner, 2009, p.514) The year 2004 began with 83,361 pretrial cases. (Office of Justice Programs, 2006, p.1) From this amount of cases 33 percent of the defendants were released after the initial or detention hearing, 67 percent were detained and less than 1% were dismissed. (Id) Out of the 78,219 who completed pretrial services, 40 percent of them were release afore their criminal trial. (Id) Defendants charged with weapon, immigration and violent offenses were less probable to be released before trial than those charged with property