Garrity Rule: Equivalent Of Miranda Warnings

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

Along with the order in which the police investigate, interrogate and read suspects their rights, officers must be sure that the suspect understands his or her rights. If a suspect lacks fluent use of the English language, an interpreter in the native language is appropriate. Two questions follow the four statement Miranda Rights, these questions are:

Two important legal cases have given employees specific rights during investigatory interviews. The case, NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), gave rise to employees’ Weingarten rights: Employees that face disciplinary action, or questioned about matters that could lead to disciplinary actions against them are entitled to their Weingarten rights. In the case Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, decided by the United States Supreme Court, the Garrity Rule was established. The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to order police officers to answer questions under threat of losing their jobs, and then to use the answers to incriminate them. These two rights are important for employees to know

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

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

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

Our court system has imposed a few restrictions as to what LEOs can do to gain incriminating type statements from criminal suspects without violating their rights. Our Sixth Amendment has restrictions in place that holds officers responsible for how they obtain confessions from suspects. One example of that is the case of “Massiah v. United States (1964), where the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel in all formal criminal proceedings was violated when the government agents deliberately elicits incriminating responses from a person” (“Interrogations and Confessions”, n.d., p.

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

Law authorization must read a man his or her Miranda rights, "that you have the privilege to remain quiet" and so forth., just if they

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

In other words, can police officials interrogate a suspect without advising them of their rights and not violate their 5th Amendment rights.

* Context of interrogation is always coercive. Although police powers may be small, psychological powers are very great

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.

The United States Constitution protects for suspects right against compelled self-incrimination during a police interrogation, regardless of whether they are charged with a federal or state crime. In other words, he or she cannot be enforced to confess to an offense or any part of an offense. Also, the state constitution may protect suspects, but regardless of what protections the state constitution provides, the police must, at least, satisfy the relevant federal tests. Therefore, before they are interrogated, the police must always give them their “Miranda warnings.”