Many people are familiar with the Miranda warning. However, contrary to popular perception, police don’t need to provide Miranda warnings in every interaction with individuals. And while it seems counterintuitive, a suspect who wants to invoke their right to remain silent usually needs to speak up. This article will discuss some of the basic principles that go along with Miranda rights.
What Are Miranda Rights?
The basis for Miranda rights comes from the landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Police arrested Ernesto Miranda and brought him to the police station where they interrogated him for two hours and obtained a written confession from him. At no point did the officers tell Miranda he had the right to an attorney or the right not to incriminate himself. The prosecution was allowed to admit the confession into evidence, and a jury convicted Miranda. (384 U.S. 436.)
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Miranda’s conviction, finding that the confession was inadmissible because the police never informed Miranda of his right to consult and have an attorney present during questioning and the right to remain silent. The Court said that a four-part warning—now known as the Miranda warning—must be given to a “person in custody before he is questioned.”
When Must Miranda Rights Be Given?
Officers need to give the Miranda warnings only when they (1) take suspects into custody and (2) interrogate (question) them. Both factors must be present for Miranda rights to kick in.
In custody. An officer takes a person into custody when they deprive a person of their freedom in any significant way. A formal arrest—being handcuffed, placed in a squad car, or told that you’re under arrest—is the prime example of being in custody. But less obvious situations can also be considered “in custody.” Generally, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave, the suspect is “in custody.” For instance, courts have found that suspects were “in custody” when their voluntary interviews given at the police station turned coercive with aggressive questioning and other intimidating tactics—essentially negating the officers’ statements that the suspects were free to leave.
Interrogation. Placing a person in custody won’t require a Miranda warning unless the officer questions the person. And, unless the officer takes some action to get someone to talk, a person who voluntarily starts talking to police without being asked any questions doesn’t have a right to a Miranda warning.
When Are Miranda Warnings Not Required?
It’s sometimes easier to understand Miranda rights by knowing when police are not required to provide a warning. In the situations below, courts have generally held the person was not in custody or not interrogated for Miranda purposes.
On-the-street questioning. Police are allowed to seek voluntary cooperation of people and potential witnesses in their investigative role. Even at a crime scene, the officer can typically ask minimally intrusive questions for information without providing a Miranda warning.
Traffic stops. Pulling over drivers for traffic infractions doesn’t generally rise to the level of being “in custody.” Motorists know that they’re usually free to leave after the brief stop. Asking a person to step out of the car doesn’t necessarily count as being in custody either, unless more happens, such as being handcuffed, being told to get in the police car, or being surrounded by squad cars.
No questions asked. Officers can skip Miranda if they arrest someone but hold off on interrogating them.
Voluntary interview. If a person voluntarily agrees to come down to the station to answer a few questions, the person isn’t normally in custody (as long as they are free to leave). The situation can change if questioning becomes accusatory and aggressive or the police tell the person they’ve become a suspect in the criminal investigation.
Emergency situations. When the police ask questions in emergency situations, such questions typically won’t be considered interrogative for Miranda purposes. For instance, while an emergency exists at the crime scene, a police officer doesn’t need to Mirandize witnesses before asking them questions to help find or protect a victim or to protect the officer’s own safety.
How Does a Person Exercise Their Miranda Rights?
Miranda covers two separate rights:
- the right for questioning to end until the suspect can consult a lawyer, and
- the right to remain silent—to not say anything at all.
A suspect advised of the Miranda rights is allowed at any point to assert them. The suspect can stop any questioning before it starts or begin to answer police questions and then cut off the interrogation. To invoke (claim) these rights, a person should make the request clear and unequivocal. Remaining silent often won’t be enough. (Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010).)
Right to remain silent. Suspects must speak up to claim their right to remain silent. The Supreme Court has held that saying nothing doesn’t let the police know a person wishes to remain silent or to have the questioning stopped. Suspects should unambiguously state they are claiming their right to remain silent.
Right to counsel. When a suspect asks for counsel, police must stop the questioning until a lawyer is present. Like the right to remain silent, the suspect must unambiguously ask for counsel—saying something like “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer?” won’t always cut it. A person should clearly state something like, “I want to speak to a lawyer” or “I won’t answer any questions until I get a lawyer.”
What Happens If Police Violate a Person’s Miranda Rights?
A Miranda violation doesn't mean the case will necessarily be dismissed. If police take someone into custody and question them without giving a Miranda warning, the person's statement cannot be used in criminal court to prove their guilt. Called the “exclusionary rule,” this rule seeks to deter officers from violating a suspect’s rights.
But a prosecutor can often offer the illegally obtained statement to impeach (discredit) the person’s testimony. If the person’s testimony at trial conflicts with the unMirandized statement given to police, the prosecutor may introduce the statement to attack the person’s credibility.
Talk to a Lawyer
The rules surrounding police questioning are notoriously complex, and courts evaluate each situation on a case-by-case basis. So, while it might seem clear cut, it's often best to ask for, and speak with, a criminal defense attorney before offering up any statements to police.