Threshold Questions
What are the two initial questions in any Miranda analysis:
Was the suspect in custody? Was the suspect interrogated?
Custody
Formal arrest; OR
Its functional equivalent? How does caselaw explain this rule?
When a reasonable person in the suspects position would conclude that his freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest Significant deprivation of personal freedom Police dominated atmosphere
What is interrogation?
Express questioning or its functional equivalent
Words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Relevant factors include police intent & knowledge of suspects vulnerability. State agent known as such to suspect.
Question First/Warn Later: Does an initial failure to inform a suspect of his rights bar subsequent admissions after he has been fully advised?
Rule Explanation:
* Elstad (1985) * Must look at all the factual circumstances * Issue is voluntariness
Missouri v. Siebert (2004) Midstream recitation of warnings: Could the warnings could reasonably convey that suspect could choose to stop talking even if they had talked earlier? In this case, no. Court must look at the facts. * Elstad was a good faith failure to warn. * This was police protocol * Overlapping content of first/second statements * Timing * Continuity of police personnel
Must invoke right to remain silent Invocation must be clear and explicit What is the rationale behind this -requirement?
Once invoke right to remain silent, custodial interrogation must cease unless:
Officers scrupulously honor suspects right to cut off questioning; AND Obtains a waiver
Second run at question. . . when suspect asks for a lawyer, interrogation must cease and may continue ONLY if . . . 1) Attorney is present; OR 2) Suspect initiates.
.
How long does Edwards protection last? Suspect was questioned while in prison for another crime. He invoked his right to counsel and interview was terminated. Suspect was released back into general prison population. Three years later, another detective reopened the investigation and attempted to interrogate suspect, who was still incarcerated. Suspect waived his Miranda rights and made incriminating statements. Is statement admissible?
abandoned & consequences of abandoning . Government only has to show that suspect aware of the matters in the warnings. Knowledge component requires capacity to understand. Look at circumstances: Evidence to show suspect mentally challenged? Does not understand English?
(3) Was the Waiver Voluntary? Free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion or deception First MUST show official coercion If sufficient official coercion, voluntariness determined by totality of relevant circumstances Note: The voluntariness analysis for waiver is the same as the Due Process Test for determining the voluntariness of confessionswas the suspects will broken?
In a voluntariness analysis, what factors might be relevant to the totality of the circumstances? Circumstances of interrogation including length of time Physical harm or threats of physical harm Promises of leniency on charging or sentencing Extreme deception Exploiting suspects particular vulnerabilities
Quarles concerned the failure to warn before custodial interrogationit permits officers to dispense with requirements of warnings and waiver. Application: It is unclear whether Public Safety can justify the failure to abide by other requirements, such as the demand that waiver be voluntary.
Actual compulsion = NO public safety exception because 5th Amendment would bar the use of the statement.
Md v Shatzer (June 2010) Interrogated in prisonQ stopped after suspect invoked M right to counsel. Released into general population. Q again 3 years later by another detective. Suspect then waived M and made incriminating statements. Court held admissible.
Edwards Protection not eternal. Break in custody of sufficient duration to dissipate coercive effects: 2 weeks is sufficient break. Distinguished Minnick: Suspect didnt regain sense of control/normalcy after initially taken into custody for crime under investigation. Waiver must still be knowing & voluntary.