Home » Government Articles » The Weakening of Miranda
The Weakening of Miranda
Since the Miranda case was handed down over four decades ago, the warning and the rights it encompasses have been limited time and again.
August 01, 2010 /Government PR News/ -- Anyone who has seen the police make an arrest on television or in the movies is familiar with the Miranda warning: a stern faced cop handcuffs the suspect, looks him in the eye, and growls "you have the right to remain silent." This statement really is only a portion of the complete warning meant to fully inform a suspect of the right to decline to make self-incriminatory comments; among other things, effective warnings should also inform of the right to legal counsel.
But just how strong are these rights? Since the Miranda case was handed down over four decades ago, the warning and the rights it encompasses have been limited time and again. Despite its pervasiveness in popular culture, recent Supreme Court reasoning calls into question the future strength of the Miranda warning.
The Establishment and Devolution of the Miranda Warning
In 1966, the United States Supreme Court decided that a self-incriminating statement elicited by the police would not constitute admissible evidence unless prior to making the statement the suspect was informed of the right to legal counsel and the right to decline to make self-incriminating statements, and then made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights. This was the fruit of the case Miranda v. Arizona, and although the rights referred to are commonly called Miranda rights, they in fact arise from the U.S. Constitution. Instead of creating new rights, the Miranda case actually required that suspects be fully informed of their rights prior to police interrogation. Thus, the Miranda warning is not a condition of detention, but rather a protection against self-incrimination.
The remedy for a Miranda violation is inadmissibility in court of the wrongfully obtained statement. Also, any evidence gained or learned of from further interrogation may fall under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule and be excluded from a criminal trial.
An exception to Miranda was carved out just a few years later in the case Harris v. New York. In Harris, the Supreme Court ruled that statements obtained in violation of Miranda could still be used in court to impeach (in other words, to discredit or contradict) a defendant's own testimony.
When courts began to interpret the terms "custody" and "interrogation" the value of Miranda was further reduced. Since Miranda protections only apply to suspects questioned in police custody, statements made to the authorities while not formally under arrest, even absent a proper warning, will most likely be admissible in court. Furthermore, statements made while not being "interrogated" are not shielded under current law. For example, if after invoking his or her Miranda rights a suspect spontaneously spoke or made a remark in response to an overheard conversation between police officers, the statement would not be in response to an interrogation and may be admissible. There is now also a public safety exception to Miranda, whereby statements elicited about an imminent public danger are admissible even without a proper warning.
Recent Development
The most recent Supreme Court case to chip away at Miranda is Berghuis v. Thompkins. In this case, Mr. Thompkins was taken into custody as a suspect and advised of his rights. While being questioned, at no point did he explicitly say he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk to the police, or that he wanted an attorney, but instead remained largely silent for almost three hours. Eventually Thompkins made an incriminating statement, and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that he did not invoke his right to remain silent and end the questioning simply by being nonresponsive. In light of this case, a suspect must unambiguously and assertively invoke his or her Miranda rights while being interrogated in order to cease questioning.
Things to Remember
While the constitutional rights underlying Miranda remain, the plethora of exceptions and qualifications mean these protections are not as strong as one may think. It is important to keep in mind that there are other significant protections afforded to the accused beyond those outlined by the Miranda case, including some arising under state constitutions. Utah's constitution, for instance, outlines state-specific rights of accused persons in Article I, Section 12, including the right to demand in writing the nature and cause of accusations and the right to appeal in all cases.
Given the myriad complications to Miranda and its ever-declining strength, consult with an experienced attorney. An experienced attorney is the best resource for explaining and assisting you in invoking your rights, and an attorney can help you determine the strength and scope of your rights, and will be able to inform you of any additional applicable local rights.
Should you find yourself under arrest or being questioned by the police, try to remain calm. If you do not wish to answer their inquiries, politely, but firmly, assert that you want to remain silent and invoke your right to legal counsel. Once you unequivocally state your desire to invoke your Miranda rights, questioning should cease, and you should contact an attorney.
Article provided by Access Legal
Visit us at www.utahaccesslegal.com
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com |
|
|
Press Release Contact Information:
Findlaw PR
|
|
|
|
|
| GOVERNMENT ARCHIVE SEARCH |
|
|
| |
|
|
Advertise With Us |
About Us |
Contact Us