Admissions and Confessions MNPD Training Academy Session 45

History Prior to Miranda v. Arizona, courts used a “totality of the circumstances” test to determine whether a confession or admission was VOLUNTARY. In 1964, the court ABANDONED the totality of the circumstances approach.

Miranda v. Arizona... Ernsesto Miranda was a suspect in a rape. He was arrested and taken to a police station where he was identified by the rape victim. He was then taken to an interrogation room and questioned by two police officers without being advised of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Vignera v. New York... Vignera was picked up in connection with a robbery, taken to headquarters, and interrogated. He confessed, and eight hours later gave a written statement. He was not informed of his rights.

Westover v. U.S. Westover was arrested by police as a robbery suspect. First the local police interrogated him, then the FBI interrogated him. After two hours, he signed confessions.

California v. Stewart Stewart was arrested at his home where police found robbery proceeds. He was then taken to a police station and placed in a cell where over a period of five days he was interrogated nine times.

In each case... …the suspect was questioned by police in a room where he was cut off from the outside world. …the police did not advise the suspect of his constitutional rights. The courts decided all these cases under one name, Miranda.

As a result, Whenever a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom of action in any significant way by police, they must be given the following warnings before any questioning takes place:

They must be informed clearly and unequivocally that they have the right to remain silent. They must be told that any statement they make can and will be used against them in court.

They must be informed that they have the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with them during questioning. They must be told that if they are indigent and cannot afford an lawyer, a lawyer will be appointed to represent them. _____________________________________

The person in custody must be given the opportunity to exercise these rights throughout the course of the interrogation. After the warning and opportunity to exercise them have been given, the person may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement.

Until sufficient proof of adequate warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at a trial or suppression hearing, NO EVIDENCE obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used against the person.

Miranda- Issues The Miranda issues can generally be divided into two questions: Whether Miranda requirements apply to the particular case: Is the defendant in custody? Are the defendant’s statements the result of interrogation? Was there a law enforcement officer present?

Whether the Miranda requirements have been met in cases where they apply. Were the warnings adequate? Were the rights clearly waived? Was the suspect competent to waive rights?

Custody Often there is difficulty in determining whether a person is in “custody” or is “deprived of his freedom in any significant way.” The safe thing to do is to give the warnings whenever there is any doubt whether or not they apply.

Does the “focus of the investigation” matter? NO! The test is now whether the individual being questioned is in custody or has been deprived of freedom of action in any significant way.

It is generally held that even though an officer knows the suspect committed the crime, or the officer intends to arrest the suspect at the end of questioning, or the officer would not allow the suspect to leave if she tried, Miranda warnings need not be given IF the interview is not otherwise custodial.

Miranda-Custody State v. Payne Tenn.Crim.App., 2003 Permission to appeal granted Several factors indicating “custody.”

These Factors Included: Unaccompanied by anyone for support Left in a windowless room Room’s door was shut Locked/Stuck door Accusatory questioning Officer slamming hand on table Officer yelling at suspect

The U.S. Supreme Court said... “Custodial interrogation” is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. The “objective” test of custody: Whether, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would reasonably believe that he or she was in custody or deprived of freedom of action in any significant way.

Place of Interrogation Police stations and police vehicles? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is the suspect under arrest? Was he “ordered” to come in for questioning? Did he drive himself, or was he “given a free ride?” Jails? Oh, yeah.

Homes? Place of business? Ordinarily, no. In Orozco v. Texas the Supreme Court held that the 4:00 am questioning of a suspect in his bedroom was a custodial interrogation. Was the situation police dominated? Place of business? Usually non-custodial.

Brief Street Encounters? Public Places? Usually no, unless “police dominated atmosphere.” Hospitals? Usually not. Brief Street Encounters? No.

Time of Interrogation An interrogation conducted during business hours is less likely to be considered custodial than one conducted at night.

Presence of Other Persons It helps show that the suspect is not in custody if there are other citizens around.

Suspect Under Arrest or Restraint If suspects are told they are under arrest, they are DEFINITELY in custody for Miranda purposes. If suspects are told that they are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time, they are generally considered not in custody. The physical restraint of the suspect creates custody.

Police Coercion or Domination Police coercion and/or the creation of a police-dominated atmosphere are usually indicative of custody.

Determination of Custody -Summary The determination of whether an interrogation is custodial for purposes of Miranda may require the consideration of many factors. In borderline cases, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Interrogation Once it has been determined whether or not a suspect is in custody, the question arises whether any statements made are the product of interrogation. The Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent.

“Interrogation” refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Volunteered Statements In Miranda, the court stated that “volunteered” statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment. Officers do not need to interrupt a volunteered statement in order to warn a suspect of her Miranda rights.

Clarifying Questions Since most volunteered admissions are unspecific, an officer may try to clarify exactly what is being said. Courts have held that a statement is volunteered even if some questions are asked by police. The questions must not be designed to expand upon what the person originally intended to say, but merely to clear up or explain the person’s original statement.

Brief and Routine Questions Courts have held that brief and routine questioning is not “interrogation” under Miranda, even if the suspect is in custody. Routine questions asked during the booking of a suspect by the booking officer have usually been held to be non-interrogative in nature.

Spontaneous Questions When officers ask questions spontaneously, impulsively, or in response to emergency circumstances, the questions are usually held to be non-interrogative.

Questions related to public safety The U.S.Supreme Court held that there was a “public safety” exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given even though the suspect was under arrest at gunpoint and handcuffed.

Confrontation with Evidence When there is no verbal interrogation and the suspect is merely confronted with evidence, courts have held that damaging admissions made were not the product of interrogation. When, however, an officer attempts to get the suspect to talk, courts have found that an interrogation took place and suppressed the admissions.

Statements or Actions of Officers If the officer’s statements are deliberately directed toward obtaining incriminating information, courts will consider the statements as tantamount to interrogation. The “Christian Burial” Speech

Miranda-Affidavit Reading State v. Sawyer Tenn.Crim.App., 2003 Permission to Appeal granted Miranda is required prior to reading an arrest warrant to a suspect if he is in custody. It is not required when just informing defendant of the charges against him.

Interrogation by Private Citizens Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations conducted by law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers may not use private citizens as their agents in an attempt to circumvent the Miranda rule.

Multiple Attempts at Interrogation In general, once a suspect indicates either a desire to remain silent or a desire to speak with an attorney, all questioning must stop until the suspect confers with an attorney.

Attempts after right to silence invoked Under limited conditions, a second interrogation of a suspect who exercised the Miranda right of silence may be allowed, IF The person’s right to end questioning at the initial interrogation is promptly honored, A significant amount of time passes, The person is given complete Miranda warnings again, AND No pressure to cooperate or other illegal tactics are employed.

Attempts after right to counsel invoked An accused’s request for an attorney is per se an invocation of Fifth Amendment rights, requiring that all interrogation cease. He is not subject to further interrogation until counsel is made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication with police. This does not include routine questions, i.e., drink of water, telephone call, etc.

There is a second prerequisite if the suspect has asked for an attorney- You must show a knowing and intelligent waiver of these rights. Must be shown to be “knowing and intelligent” by the totality of the circumstances.

Attempts after Defendant is Formally Charged In Massiah v. U.S., the court held that officers may not deliberately elicit incriminating statements from a defendant by surreptitious methods after indictment. “Christian Burial” speech Statements made to a paid informant in a cell block were inadmissible.

WARNINGS You have the right to remain silent. The following warnings must be given before questioning persons in custody: 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 talk to a lawyer and have him present during questioning. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning. You have the right to stop answering questions at any time.

Manner of Giving Warnings Miranda warnings must be stated clearly and in an unhurried manner so that the person warned understands their rights and feels free to claim them without fear. The warnings should not be given in a careless, indifferent, and superficial manner. When the warnings are given to immature, illiterate, or mentally impaired persons, they must be given in such a way that the person can comprehend them.

Does the suspect require warnings? What if he says, “I know my rights”? GIVE THEM ANYWAY He looks like he can’t afford an attorney? Suspect has his attorney with him?

WAIVER A waiver is a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right. After the warnings are give, the officer should ask the suspect if he understands his rights AND if he wishes to speak with a lawyer. Careful note should be taken of the language used by the suspect to waive his rights in order to preserve it for court.

When possible, obtain a written waiver. The state has the burden of proving that the defendant waived his Miranda rights

Words and Actions Indicating Waiver When a defendant has been fully informed of her rights, any reasonable oral statement of understanding and willingness to speak is usually acceptable as a waiver of her rights. “Might as well tell you about it…” “I’ll tell you…” “I’ve heard it before…” Non-verbal waivers, such as nods, may be upheld.

Requirement of Written Waiver A suspect’s refusal to sign a written waiver generally does not affect the validity of the suspect’s waiver with respect to the admissibility of oral statements, assuming that a valid oral waiver was obtained.

Competency Courts will examine the totality of the circumstances to ensure that a suspect was competent to waive his rights. Things that the court will examine include: education intelligence literacy physical/mental condition drug or alcohol use language barriers age

Summary Miranda warnings are designed to ensure that suspects are aware of their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments during interrogation. There are three requirements necessary for Miranda to attach: 1. Custody 2. Interrogation 3. Presence of law enforcement officer