Literature Review # 3: Miranda V. Arizona

Running Head: LITERATURE REVIEW #3: MIRANDA

Literature Review #3: Miranda

Henry Slack Jr.

Park University

Literature Review #3: Miranda Introduction
"You have the right to remain silent." Those words have been popularized in television and movies, and many people recognize them as the opening of the Miranda rights. But what those rights are, and what results when police officers fail to read them to criminal suspects, are topics that are frequently misunderstood. Before Miranda, the right against self-incrimination was never self-executing and always had to be invoked by the suspect. This invocation is what is commonly referred to as ‘pleading the Fifth.' In Miranda, the Supreme Court shifted this burden to the police, and required them to specifically advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during questioning. The Court ruled that all statements or confessions made in the absence of the warnings are inherently involuntary and coerced, and hence inadmissible in court.
Analysis
The most common misconception regarding the warnings is that police must read them to everyone that they arrest, and that an arrest without them is somehow invalid.
This is a myth: as long as police have probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime, the arrest is valid. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona essentially is that "The prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of safeguards effective against self-incrimination". This means that any time a person is in custody and subject to interrogation, the police must apprise the person of his rights, or the statements are inadmissible in
court.
Custody is defined as any deprivation of liberty where the person does not feel the freedom to simply walk away. It should be noted that courts generally rule that people are not in custody during routine traffic stops and other routine police encounters. Interrogation means: questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or, any other police action that produces an incriminating response. Once these two elements exist, the police are required to read a suspect the warnings. The reason for this requirement is that there is a danger of coercion resulting from the interaction of custody and official interrogation, whereby the suspect may feel compelled to speak by the fear of reprisal for remaining silent. Once the Miranda warnings are given, any statements that the suspect makes after that point are admissible, even if they are the same statements that were made prior to the warnings. This is true because a confession made by a suspect with knowledge of his Miranda rights is not considered the product of coercive police conduct, due to the fact that the suspect is now fully aware of his rights.
Conclusion
Know your rights. It is absolutely vital that suspects understand that the rights covered by the Miranda warnings can be waived, or given up, provided the waiver is made voluntarily. People can waive their rights in any number of ways, verbally, in writing, or impliedly by making statements after the warnings are issued. Next time you hear "You have the right to remain silent" on television you can smile knowing that its just for television and for effect.

Reference
Miranda Revisited, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Report, August 2001. Police Interrogations, Supreme Court Debates, April 2004.