 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Miranda
Warning
Warning
"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 an attorney. If you cannot
afford an attorney, one will be
provided for you."
silent. Anything you say can and
will be used against you in a
court of law. You have the right
to an attorney. If you cannot
afford an attorney, one will be
provided for you."
There's more to the Miranda Warning than those three sentences listed above.
In 1966, the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona; wherein, the Court
imposed what it termed "preventative safeguards" to ensure an individual's 5th
Amendment right against self incrimination. The Court provided guidelines from
which those three sentences emerged.
You often hear about a criminal escaping prosecution through a "technicality." If
you think it's bad today, you should have started your police career when I did in
1971. In those years, courts were hypercritical about every technicality you could
imagine. Miranda was no less controversial and interpretive. Every judge had his
or her view on Miranda, and the only consensus among judges always seemed to
be their conclusion that police officers frequently failed to get it right.
It's not so bad today; although, you'll always have to pay close attention to those
ever present "technicalities." When it comes to Miranda, your department will
provide you with a rights' waiver form to assist you in advising, and most
importantly -- documenting -- a criminal suspect's voluntary waiver of his or her
right to remain silent. The form can be quite extensive to include questions
regarding the suspect's level of education completed. The suspect will be required
to initial each question indicating his or her understanding of the question. The
suspect will then indicate the waiver of rights, or he or she will invoke the right to
remain silent and sign the form. Somewhere on the form will be the question,
"Can you read and write?" You should always have the suspect read aloud a
number of the questions sufficient to ensure that the suspect can, in fact, read
and comprehend the questions. You should then document that "reading and
comprehension" test in your reporting.
As video technology becomes more commonplace, your department may provide
the facilities for any police officer to conduct his or her interrogation of a suspect
on videotape. While a videotaped interrogation can clearly remove any doubt
regarding a suspect's voluntary wavier of his or her right to remain silent, you
should realize that a videotape can communicate so much more. For instance,
some members of a jury may view your personality or manner as intimidating;
therefore, they develop doubt about the suspect's voluntary waiver of rights. I'm
not saying that would happen. I am saying that if twelve people view a videotaped
interrogation, there will be twelve different interpretations of the interrogation.
Your job is to keep any videotaped interrogation as neutral and on point as
possible.
When you become a police officer, you'll find that criminal suspects fall into two
categories...those who will talk, and those who won't. The truth about Miranda is
that it has very little, if any, effect on a suspect's willingness to talk to you about
the alleged offense. It's rare that a suspect will be truthful. Suspects will attempt
to deceive you in their efforts to talk themselves out of trouble, but -- hey --
that's what interrogations are all about. So...when you give suspects their
Miranda Warning, make certain the warning is through and well documented.
When you watch the television cops arrest people, the handcuffs aren't even on
before the officer begins, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you
say...." While that's okay, it's not necessary to give any suspect the Miranda
Warning; until, you decide to ask the suspect a question relevant to the crime
committed. In fact, a verbal advice of rights isn't all that strong in establishing
your compliance with Miranda. That's why you'll have the means to document
your compliance.
During you academy training you're going to hear about res gestae... spontaneous
and excited utterances. Here's an easy example where a spontaneous utterance
by a criminal suspect would be admissible as evidence; even though, no Miranda
Warning has been given to the suspect:
I love this one. I think the term "person of interest" started following the
Richard Jewel debacle and really got going during the infamous Scott Peterson
murder investigation. Since then, the term has earned its place in the dictionary
of political correctness. Look...a suspect is a suspect, and a person of interest is a
suspect. When it comes to the proper application of the Miranda Warning, that
person of interest stuff won't cut any ice with a judge when you try to justify
admissibility of evidence derived from accusatory questioning of a person of
interest without a Miranda Warning. Since suspects can fall under any number of
degrees of suspicion, someone came up with the person of interest thing. You
hear it now used regularly to fend off the press in high profile investigations.
In 1966, the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona; wherein, the Court
imposed what it termed "preventative safeguards" to ensure an individual's 5th
Amendment right against self incrimination. The Court provided guidelines from
which those three sentences emerged.
You often hear about a criminal escaping prosecution through a "technicality." If
you think it's bad today, you should have started your police career when I did in
1971. In those years, courts were hypercritical about every technicality you could
imagine. Miranda was no less controversial and interpretive. Every judge had his
or her view on Miranda, and the only consensus among judges always seemed to
be their conclusion that police officers frequently failed to get it right.
It's not so bad today; although, you'll always have to pay close attention to those
ever present "technicalities." When it comes to Miranda, your department will
provide you with a rights' waiver form to assist you in advising, and most
importantly -- documenting -- a criminal suspect's voluntary waiver of his or her
right to remain silent. The form can be quite extensive to include questions
regarding the suspect's level of education completed. The suspect will be required
to initial each question indicating his or her understanding of the question. The
suspect will then indicate the waiver of rights, or he or she will invoke the right to
remain silent and sign the form. Somewhere on the form will be the question,
"Can you read and write?" You should always have the suspect read aloud a
number of the questions sufficient to ensure that the suspect can, in fact, read
and comprehend the questions. You should then document that "reading and
comprehension" test in your reporting.
As video technology becomes more commonplace, your department may provide
the facilities for any police officer to conduct his or her interrogation of a suspect
on videotape. While a videotaped interrogation can clearly remove any doubt
regarding a suspect's voluntary wavier of his or her right to remain silent, you
should realize that a videotape can communicate so much more. For instance,
some members of a jury may view your personality or manner as intimidating;
therefore, they develop doubt about the suspect's voluntary waiver of rights. I'm
not saying that would happen. I am saying that if twelve people view a videotaped
interrogation, there will be twelve different interpretations of the interrogation.
Your job is to keep any videotaped interrogation as neutral and on point as
possible.
When you become a police officer, you'll find that criminal suspects fall into two
categories...those who will talk, and those who won't. The truth about Miranda is
that it has very little, if any, effect on a suspect's willingness to talk to you about
the alleged offense. It's rare that a suspect will be truthful. Suspects will attempt
to deceive you in their efforts to talk themselves out of trouble, but -- hey --
that's what interrogations are all about. So...when you give suspects their
Miranda Warning, make certain the warning is through and well documented.
When you watch the television cops arrest people, the handcuffs aren't even on
before the officer begins, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you
say...." While that's okay, it's not necessary to give any suspect the Miranda
Warning; until, you decide to ask the suspect a question relevant to the crime
committed. In fact, a verbal advice of rights isn't all that strong in establishing
your compliance with Miranda. That's why you'll have the means to document
your compliance.
During you academy training you're going to hear about res gestae... spontaneous
and excited utterances. Here's an easy example where a spontaneous utterance
by a criminal suspect would be admissible as evidence; even though, no Miranda
Warning has been given to the suspect:
I love this one. I think the term "person of interest" started following the
Richard Jewel debacle and really got going during the infamous Scott Peterson
murder investigation. Since then, the term has earned its place in the dictionary
of political correctness. Look...a suspect is a suspect, and a person of interest is a
suspect. When it comes to the proper application of the Miranda Warning, that
person of interest stuff won't cut any ice with a judge when you try to justify
admissibility of evidence derived from accusatory questioning of a person of
interest without a Miranda Warning. Since suspects can fall under any number of
degrees of suspicion, someone came up with the person of interest thing. You
hear it now used regularly to fend off the press in high profile investigations.
You receive a call for a robbery. You arrive at the scene where you're
met by a woman who tells you she was just beaten and robbed. Your
questioning reveals the woman was about to enter her car when the
suspect grabbed her purse. The woman struggled with the suspect in
her attempt to retain her purse. The suspect then punched the victim in
the face causing her to let go of the purse. The suspect then escaped
with the victim's purse.
The victim provides a good physical and clothing description of the
suspect, and she assures you she can identify the suspect if she sees him
again. It's only been about ten minutes since the crime occurred, and
you put the victim into your car to conduct a search for the suspect.
You begin your search in the direction of the suspect's flight. After
about ten minutes into your search, you're approximately six blocks
from where the robbery occurred when your victim shouts,
"There...over there...that's him! That's the man who robbed me."
She's pointing toward three men standing in front of a liquor store.
From the physical description the victim gave you previously, you
quickly identify the suspect.
You tell the victim to slide down in the backseat as you park your car a
few car lengths away from the three men. You then get out of your car
and casually approach the front of the store. The suspect immediately
notices you, and you can sense his nervous anticipation. However, you
don't look directly at him, so he delays his escape until it's too late. As
you grab onto to him, the other two men take off, and the suspect
begins the usual protestations, "Hey, man. What's gone on, I didn't do
nothing." You're arresting the suspect based on the positive
identification of the victim. Even though the crime was not committed
in your presence, the crime of robbery is a felony, and the victim's
identification is sufficient probable cause for you to arrest the suspect.
As you're handcuffing the suspect, the victim emerges from the back
seat and stands next to your car. Your suspect looks at the victim and
states, "Oh, no, man. This is wrong. I didn't take that woman's
purse." Would you say that this suspect just made an incriminating
statement? Of course, he did. You didn't say anything to the suspect,
and you're six blocks from where the crime occurred. How would the
suspect know the woman's purse had been taken if he didn't take the
purse. Now would be a good time for you to verbally give the suspect his
Miranda Warning. The warning won't shut up this idiot, but it will look
good in your reporting.
met by a woman who tells you she was just beaten and robbed. Your
questioning reveals the woman was about to enter her car when the
suspect grabbed her purse. The woman struggled with the suspect in
her attempt to retain her purse. The suspect then punched the victim in
the face causing her to let go of the purse. The suspect then escaped
with the victim's purse.
The victim provides a good physical and clothing description of the
suspect, and she assures you she can identify the suspect if she sees him
again. It's only been about ten minutes since the crime occurred, and
you put the victim into your car to conduct a search for the suspect.
You begin your search in the direction of the suspect's flight. After
about ten minutes into your search, you're approximately six blocks
from where the robbery occurred when your victim shouts,
"There...over there...that's him! That's the man who robbed me."
She's pointing toward three men standing in front of a liquor store.
From the physical description the victim gave you previously, you
quickly identify the suspect.
You tell the victim to slide down in the backseat as you park your car a
few car lengths away from the three men. You then get out of your car
and casually approach the front of the store. The suspect immediately
notices you, and you can sense his nervous anticipation. However, you
don't look directly at him, so he delays his escape until it's too late. As
you grab onto to him, the other two men take off, and the suspect
begins the usual protestations, "Hey, man. What's gone on, I didn't do
nothing." You're arresting the suspect based on the positive
identification of the victim. Even though the crime was not committed
in your presence, the crime of robbery is a felony, and the victim's
identification is sufficient probable cause for you to arrest the suspect.
As you're handcuffing the suspect, the victim emerges from the back
seat and stands next to your car. Your suspect looks at the victim and
states, "Oh, no, man. This is wrong. I didn't take that woman's
purse." Would you say that this suspect just made an incriminating
statement? Of course, he did. You didn't say anything to the suspect,
and you're six blocks from where the crime occurred. How would the
suspect know the woman's purse had been taken if he didn't take the
purse. Now would be a good time for you to verbally give the suspect his
Miranda Warning. The warning won't shut up this idiot, but it will look
good in your reporting.
| Person of Interest |
ts
In 1963, Ernesto
Miranda was arrested
for kidnapping and
rape. He made a
confession without
having been told of his
constitutional right to
remain silent and his
right to have an
attorney present
during police
questioning. At trial,
prosecutors offered
only his confession as
evidence and he was
convicted. The
Supreme Court ruled
(Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966))
that Miranda was
intimidated by the
interrogation and that
he did not understand
his right not to
incriminate himself or
his right to counsel. On
this basis, they
overturned his
conviction. Miranda
was later convicted in
a new trial, with
witnesses testifying
against him and other
evidence presented.
He served eleven
years.
Ironically, when
Miranda was later
killed in a knife fight,
his murderer was read
his Miranda rights,
which he invoked,
declining to give a
statement.
In 2000, the issue of
Miranda rights came
up before the Supreme
Court once again
(Dickerson v. United
States, 530 U.S. 428
(2000). The justices
re-affirmed the role of
the earlier precedent.
Miranda was arrested
for kidnapping and
rape. He made a
confession without
having been told of his
constitutional right to
remain silent and his
right to have an
attorney present
during police
questioning. At trial,
prosecutors offered
only his confession as
evidence and he was
convicted. The
Supreme Court ruled
(Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966))
that Miranda was
intimidated by the
interrogation and that
he did not understand
his right not to
incriminate himself or
his right to counsel. On
this basis, they
overturned his
conviction. Miranda
was later convicted in
a new trial, with
witnesses testifying
against him and other
evidence presented.
He served eleven
years.
Ironically, when
Miranda was later
killed in a knife fight,
his murderer was read
his Miranda rights,
which he invoked,
declining to give a
statement.
In 2000, the issue of
Miranda rights came
up before the Supreme
Court once again
(Dickerson v. United
States, 530 U.S. 428
(2000). The justices
re-affirmed the role of
the earlier precedent.
That rights' form will always
be a part of any case folder
even if the interrogation of a
suspect is done on audio or
video tape. As a patrol officer,
it's not likely that audio or
video taping will be part of
your interrogations.
Detectives routinely audio or
video tape; however, those
interrogations occur under a
structured routine. For
instance, audio tapes have
their own problems. First,
audio tapes must be
be a part of any case folder
even if the interrogation of a
suspect is done on audio or
video tape. As a patrol officer,
it's not likely that audio or
video taping will be part of
your interrogations.
Detectives routinely audio or
video tape; however, those
interrogations occur under a
structured routine. For
instance, audio tapes have
their own problems. First,
audio tapes must be
transcribed at some point...no small task. If the interrogator is not experienced,
the person transcribing can develop a real headache trying to make sense of any
conversation that is not relevant to the interrogation. Inexperienced
interrogators have the problem of stopping the audio tape -- intermission -- to
clarify issues. Prosecutors hate these "stop and start" interrogations, because
defense attorneys can logically speculate toward improper manipulation of the
interrogation.
the person transcribing can develop a real headache trying to make sense of any
conversation that is not relevant to the interrogation. Inexperienced
interrogators have the problem of stopping the audio tape -- intermission -- to
clarify issues. Prosecutors hate these "stop and start" interrogations, because
defense attorneys can logically speculate toward improper manipulation of the
interrogation.
| Copyright © 2006 - 2008 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |