1. CLASS NO. 19 REVIEW

2. Miranda Rule Before there is “custodial interrogation,” the defendant must be warned of his Miranda rights: –Right to remain silent –Anything said can be used against D –Right to counsel –Right to have counsel appointed

3. REMEDY FOR MIRANDA VIOLATION Exclude illegally obtained confession

4. Limitations on Exclusionary Rule When Applied to Miranda Reflect historical ambiguity as to whether constitutionally-based right or prophylactic procedural rule Post-Dickerson rationale: Deterrent valuevs.Cost of Exclusion

5. Exceptions to Miranda Exclusion 1.Can use statement for impeachment (unless involuntary) 2.No Fruits of Poisonous Tree 3.Public Safety / Emergency Circumstances exception

6. Impeachment Can impeach with illegal confession if voluntary Impeachment with prior silence –Not after Miranda rights given [Doyle] –Yes, if before Miranda rights given Pre-arrest [Jenkins] Post-arrest, but pre-Miranda [Fletcher]

7. Impeachment with Silence Encounter Formal ArrestMiranda warning Can impeach With Silence Can Impeach With Silence Cannot impeach With Silence

8. Timing of Miranda Rights Officers need not give unless they are going to interrogate the suspect Therefore, it is possible to be under arrest and not yet entitled to Miranda

9. Fruit of Poisonous Tree Exception Does NOT Apply Illegal confession  physical evidence [Patane] Illegal confession  leads / witnesses Illegal confession  later confession [Oregon v. Elstad] -Exception: Missouri v. Seibert [deliberately evade Miranda]

10. Public Safety Exception N.Y. v. Quarles –Threat of immediate danger [obj. std.]

11. “Custodial Interrogation” If D is not in “custody,” or D’s statement is not the product of interrogation, prosecutors can use the statement even if D did not get his or her Miranda rights

12. Examples 1)When D is arrested, officers don’t immediately start to question him. Instead, D blurts out: “Yes, I’m the killer.” 2)D is asked to come down to the station for an interview. He comes down, but is free to leave. During the non-Mirandized interview, D incriminates himself.

13. What is “custody”? Formal arrest or the functional equivalent Not mere detention Totality of circumstances Whether “reasonable person” would have felt at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave

14. “Custody” Officers tell D under arrest But, may also be “custodial” even if officers don’t say, “You are under “arrest” –Must look at all circumstances

15. Police Station Interrogations Not always “in custody” Must look at all factors [Ore. V. Mathiason] –Asked to station or escorted? –Display of weapons? –Told under arrest? –Told free to leave? –Restraints?

16. Not considered “custodial” Meeting with probation officer Terry stops [Berkemer] –Although movement restricted, not same as arrest –Temporary and limited contact –Use of handcuffs is not per se arrest

17. What is “interrogation”? Volunteered statements do not need Miranda Officers must elicit incriminating information

18. Rhode Island v. Innis What qualifies as interrogation? –Direct questioning of suspect  –Confronting suspect with evidence  [Edwards v. Arizona] –Words or actions that police know or “should know” are reasonably likely to elicit response 

19. Booking Statements Routine booking questions are not considered interrogation Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990)

20. Other situations which are not “Interrogation” Sobriety tests Undercover activity –Not “police-dominated atmosphere”