Miranda

Rights
Before any Custodial Interrogation,

the police must inform you of the following:

You have a right to remain silent.

Anything you say can and will be used

against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed.

Applicable Amendments
5th Amendment
nor shall be compelled in any criminal

case to be a witness against himself,

6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, and to have

the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Clarification
What does Custodial Interrogation mean?
This means that you have been taken into custody

or otherwise deprived of your freedom of action. In other words, if the police arrest you, or if you arent allowed to leave the place of questioning.

What if I answer some questions, but then

decide I want a lawyer?

If you decide to have a lawyer present during

questioning, then the police must stop questioning you until the lawyer gets there.

1. Benny was arrested by New York Police and charged with the armed robbery of a taxicab driver. While Benny was in jail waiting for his trial, a New York undercover ocer was placed in Bennys cell. Before the ocer asked any questions, Benny said that he had robbed the cab driver. Bennys statement was used against him at trial, despite his objection that he was not read his Miranda Rights, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Should the guilty statement be allowed in court?

1. The Supreme Court held that this was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment. They felt that unless the defendant could show that the police ocer actually questioned the prisoner, instead of merely listening to him, then the discussion did not qualify as a custodial interrogation. Note: A later supreme court case went even further, saying that Miranda warnings are not required if the defendant does not know he is speaking to a law enforcement agent.

2. Rhode Island police ocers arrested Jared on suspicion of shooting a local taxicab driver in the head, and then burying the body nearby. Jared was read his Miranda rights, and indicated that he wished to speak to a lawyer. On the way to the station, the police began talking to each other about the murder, while Jared listened in the back seat. Then, without warning, Jared admitted to the murder. At his trial, Jared argued that the police had coerced him into admitting to the murder, and that his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated.

Should the guilty statement be allowed in court?

2 The Supreme Court said that this situation

did not violate the defendants Miranda rights because he had not been expressly questioned, nor had the police said anything that they knew would likely coerce the defendant into admitting guilt. Note: The court did indicate in a later case that if, under the same circumstances, the ocers conversation was intended to produce a confession, then it would violate the defendants Fifth Amendment, even absent express questioning.

3. Robert Berkemer was driving 40 mph in a 25 mph zone when he saw the ashing lights of a patrol car behind him. He dutifully pulled over to the side of the road. The ocer approached him, and requested that he step outside of the vehicle. Robert stepped out of the car, and the ocer asked him whether or not he was aware of how fast he was going. In response to the ocers questioning, Robert admitted that he had been speeding. At his trac hearing, Robert argue that because he was detained and interrogated without receiving his Miranda warnings, his confession should not be admitted. Should the court allow Roberts confession?

3. The Supreme Court said that Miranda warnings need not be given before roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine trac stop. They did not feel that such stops impair a persons free exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights.