Miranda Research Paper

The Use of Miranda

The rule outlined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), requires that certain safeguards be put in place by an officer to protect an individual’s privilege against self-incrimination when an individual is taken into custody is subjected to questioning. The procedural safeguards require that an individual interrogated while in custody be told, “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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense. Further, if the individual waives these rights that the individual knowingly and intelligently waive these rights to answer the questions or give a statement."

A person is considered in custody when a "reasonable person [would] have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Stansbury v.

California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994). Interrogation is considered questioning "reasonably likely to elicit incriminating information. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990). Both of these factors depend on a whether a reasonable person in this situation would have felt free to leave or felt that the questioning would have resulted in the suspect providing incriminating evidence.

If the Miranda warnings are not provided or the suspect does not knowingly waive his or her rights evidence obtained after this fact will be treated as inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Moreover any information discovered as a result of improperly given or forced interrogation against the Fifth Amendment must also be excluded as evidence against the suspect in a criminal trial as it is considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471

(1963).
Prosecutors recognize that in order to obtain criminal convictions admissible evidence must be obtained against a suspect. Therefore, interrogating a suspect in violation of Miranda jeopardizes the ability to present a strong case against an individual charged with a crime, in fact, it may even prevent the case from being filed against the defendant if there is insufficient admissible evidence against the suspect. In extreme cases detaining and interrogating a suspect in violation of Miranda intentionally may result in legal liability for Civil Rights violations against the arresting Police Department and arresting officers according to Stone and Berger.
Statements from the FBI indicate that there has been a willingness by law enforcement to decline to offer terrorism suspects Miranda warnings. This raises an interesting question as one would commonly assume someone held in custody by law enforcement would be entitled to Miranda protections. In cases of terror suspects such as the Boston Marathon bomber, the suspect was not Mirandized and questions based on public safety concerns. In other situations, a terror suspect may be considered an “enemy combatant” in which normal Constitutional protections would not apply. The steering away from using Miranda for these particular cases can provide an advantage in a dangerous situation; however, it can also jeopardize the ability of prosecutors who may be forced to try a terror suspect in nonmilitary court, which would require constitutional protection for suspects be followed.