Judicial Interpretation Of Miranda-Type Rights
1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – The Foundation
Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. During police interrogation, he confessed without being informed of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination requires that suspects be informed of certain rights before custodial interrogation.
Principle: Now known as Miranda rights, these include:
The right to remain silent.
Anything said can be used against the individual in court.
The right to an attorney.
If the individual cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided.
Significance: This case established that statements made without informing a suspect of these rights are inadmissible in criminal trials.
2. Edwards v. Arizona (1981) – Invocation of Right to Counsel
Facts: After being arrested, Edwards requested an attorney. Later, police reinitiated questioning without a lawyer present.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, police may not continue questioning unless the suspect initiates further communication.
Principle: This is known as the Edwards rule, which strengthens the Miranda protection for suspects requesting legal counsel.
Impact: It prevents law enforcement from attempting “badgering” tactics after a clear request for an attorney.
3. Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) – “Interrogation” Definition
Facts: Police were transporting a suspect, Innis, in a car, and made comments that led him to reveal the location of a weapon. He hadn’t been formally questioned.
Holding: The Court defined “interrogation” under Miranda as express questioning or its functional equivalent—words or actions likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Principle: Casual or offhand comments by police do not automatically trigger Miranda warnings; there must be a reasonable likelihood of eliciting self-incriminating statements.
Significance: Clarified the scope of what constitutes “interrogation,” narrowing the broad application of Miranda.
4. Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) – Silence Is Not Enough
Facts: Thompkins was silent for most of a three-hour interrogation. Eventually, he made statements admitting guilt. Police never obtained an explicit waiver of rights after initial warnings.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that silence alone does not invoke the right to remain silent. Suspects must explicitly assert their Miranda rights.
Principle: Miranda rights must be affirmatively invoked, not assumed from silence.
Impact: Law enforcement is allowed to continue questioning until the suspect explicitly asks for an attorney or states they wish to remain silent.
5. Michigan v. Tucker (1974) – Fruits of Miranda Violation
Facts: Tucker’s confession was obtained in violation of Miranda. Police also obtained statements from witnesses as a result of that confession.
Holding: The Court held that statements derived from illegally obtained evidence (fruits of a Miranda violation) are admissible if the evidence was obtained independently.
Principle: While the direct confession may be suppressed, derivative evidence is not automatically excluded.
Significance: Limits the “automatic exclusion” principle strictly to the confession, allowing law enforcement to use evidence obtained independently of Miranda violations.
6. Oregon v. Elstad (1985) – Voluntary Follow-up Confession
Facts: Elstad initially made an unwarned admission at home. Later, at the police station, he confessed again after receiving full Miranda warnings.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that a subsequent voluntary confession, after proper warnings, is admissible, even if the initial statement was obtained in violation of Miranda.
Principle: Miranda violation does not automatically taint later voluntary confessions, as long as the suspect is properly informed and the confession is voluntary.
Impact: Introduced the idea of “attenuation” of Miranda violations.
7. Missouri v. Seibert (2004) – Intentional Circumvention
Facts: Police intentionally obtained a confession before giving Miranda warnings, then repeated the confession after giving warnings.
Holding: The Court ruled that such “question-first” tactics violated Miranda, as the warnings were given after the suspect had already confessed.
Principle: Police cannot deliberately circumvent Miranda to obtain confessions.
Significance: Limits attempts to manipulate Miranda rights, emphasizing procedural fairness.
Summary of Key Principles
Miranda rights must be read in custodial interrogation (Miranda v. Arizona).
Invocation of rights (especially the right to counsel) must be explicit (Edwards v. Arizona; Berghuis v. Thompkins).
Definition of interrogation is nuanced—actions likely to elicit incriminating statements count (Rhode Island v. Innis).
Evidence from Miranda violations may be partially admissible if independently obtained (Michigan v. Tucker; Oregon v. Elstad).
Deliberate circumvention of Miranda rights is unconstitutional (Missouri v. Seibert).
RELATED Blog
comments