Miranda Rights: Do They Need Clarification?

[MJS]

Thought this was an interesting article.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is again trying to clarify what the long-established Miranda rights require the police to do, with the justices on Wednesday agreeing to decide whether officers can interrogate a suspect who said he understood his rights, but didn’t invoke them.

The high court agreed to hear an appeal from Michigan prosecutors who had their conviction of Van Chester Thompkins thrown out by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because police kept talking to Thompkins after reading him his rights — despite Thompkins not verbally agreeing to invoke or withdraw his Miranda rights.

 

[jks9199]

At this point in time, the defendant would be screwed in Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that someone's invocation of their rights must be very clear; if you want a lawyer, you pretty much have to say "I want a lawyer and I don't want to talk to you without one." Many statements that some other courts have held to be adequate are not enough here...

He chose to speak, nod, and otherwise communicate. He should have either stayed silent, saying nothing -- or even better, specifically stated "I understand my rights and I don't want to talk to you."

 

[Rich Parsons]

At this point in time, the defendant would be screwed in Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that someone's invocation of their rights must be very clear; if you want a lawyer, you pretty much have to say "I want a lawyer and I don't want to talk to you without one." Many statements that some other courts have held to be adequate are not enough here...

He chose to speak, nod, and otherwise communicate. He should have either stayed silent, saying nothing -- or even better, specifically stated "I understand my rights and I don't want to talk to you."

Many years ago, I was read my rights at the police station (* I was a witness, but they wanted to be safe on their side *). I nodded I understood as the taped rolled. I mimed writing on paper they would nto provide any as they wanted it all on tape. I was quiet for 5 minutes and then they turned off the tape. They left and let me sit there for 45 minutes more. Then they came back and tried again but with the Chief this time. I repeated the process. Finally the chief turned off the tape and asked me why I would not even reply. I replied, that I will only speak with my lawyer present as you read me my rights. Later the ADA was very upset as they had to drop the case due to my written testimony for those that were finally charged. They asked me why I had not just told the police this. I told them about the pushing and shoving and yelling and threats and the tape and then my rights being read. So at that point I used them and remained silent. I showed up under my own, not as a request nor being taken down. I wanted to tell what I had saw, but when I was treated like a Criminal, I got mad and stood on my rights of being silent.

I was only 18, but I was not happy with the treatment nor the approach nor the presumed attitude that a witness was guilty just for being present.

 

[jks9199]

As huge of an impact as it had, and as important as it is -- Miranda was actually pretty narrow in a lot of ways. Miranda rights are only implicated when two conditions are met: questioning (or the functional equivalent) and custody (or the functional equivalent). Much of the case law regarding this has dealt with the definitions of custody or questioning, though the voluntariness of waivers has also been a significant issue. Something I'm kind of expecting before long is for someone to try to address whether or not you really need to advise people in general -- or if some determination should be made first. At the time of the decision, I think a lot of people weren't aware of the rights, and the pre-emptive explanation of the rights that they have made sense. Today, many people are so aware of their Miranda rights that they can recite the common elements of the warnings themselves. (The SC didn't specifiy the language; only that the suspect must be advised of their right against self incrimination {to remain silent}, that anything they say can be used in court, that they have the right to counsel -- which may be appointed if they cannot afford it).

But the Miranda rights are also widely misunderstood. A lot of people think that Miranda applies anytime the cops talk to you -- and that's not true. Even some situations where you can't leave (like a traffic stop) don't implicate Miranda. Certain information isn't covered, like names and other identifying information.

I'd like to hear more of the facts of this case because I think there's an argument either way.

 

[MJS]

At this point in time, the defendant would be screwed in Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that someone's invocation of their rights must be very clear; if you want a lawyer, you pretty much have to say "I want a lawyer and I don't want to talk to you without one." Many statements that some other courts have held to be adequate are not enough here...

He chose to speak, nod, and otherwise communicate. He should have either stayed silent, saying nothing -- or even better, specifically stated "I understand my rights and I don't want to talk to you."

I agree. This guy would've been better saying and doing nothing that would suggest an answer to a question. Its no wonder why interviews are being taped now. So if there is any dispute as to what was said, not said, implied, whatever, the proof is right there on the tape.

 

[jks9199]

Except that it's almost becoming an accusation if there isn't video or audio...

I'm a cop. While not all cops are angels -- there has to be a level of trust in what we say and write happened, even if there's no video because the reality is that we cannot provide video (or even audio) of every interview and encounter. And the best video/audio won't always show what the officer is perceiving... whether it's a deadly force encounter or hours-long interrogation.

 

[punisher73]

I always love hearing, "It was an illegal arrest! They NEVER read me my rights"

So many people misunderstand what Miranda is and their information comes from TV where almost every show has the cops putting the cuffs on the suspect and reading the rights, like it is mandatory.

The intent of Miranda was to protect people and inform them of their rights in certain circumstances. Again, the general public doesn't understand what it is meant to encompass.

In Mr. Parson's case there is alot of important information left out of what happened to know if Miranda even applied or not.

 

[Archangel M]

What I would say to this guy.

"Miranda IS A CLARIFICATION OF YOUR RIGHTS!" What part of "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law" didn't you understand?!?

Dumbass.

I don't know the particulars of Parsons case, but if you are not in custody you don't need Miranda anyway. If you are there willingly as a "witness" and can leave at anytime then no Miranda is necessary. If he wants to implicate himself let him. Once you determine that "this guy isnt leaving here except in cuffs"...THEN you need to read miranda.

In reality I have found that there are few instances where a patrol officer has to read miranda to someone.

 

[jks9199]

What I would say to this guy.

"Miranda IS A CLARIFICATION OF YOUR RIGHTS!" What part of "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law" didn't you understand?!?

Dumbass.

I don't know the particulars of Parsons case, but if you are not in custody you don't need Miranda anyway. If you are there willingly as a "witness" and can leave at anytime then no Miranda is necessary. If he wants to implicate himself let him. Once you determine that "this guy isnt leaving here except in cuffs"...THEN you need to read miranda.

In reality I have found that there are few instances where a patrol officer has to read miranda to someone.

I'll take mild exception to your last sentence. A lot depends on the scope of a patrol officer's duties in a particular department. In my area, most of the agencies expect patrol officers to work some reasonable cases themselves, instead of simply taking the initial report and passing it on. The call volume and culture of the departments support this, so a patrol officer may well find themselves advising people as much as several times a month. I probably read someone Miranda about a half-dozen times when I was a rookie, for example.

But, you look at a much busier department, where patrol has very little opportunity to do much but run call to call... It's a different question.

And, of course, there's the times when you find yourself as a detective explaining to a patrol officer just why his advising the suspect of Miranda just screwed your case and wasted your time because now you can't talk to the guy.

 

[Archangel M]

I'll take mild exception to your last sentence. A lot depends on the scope of a patrol officer's duties in a particular department. In my area, most of the agencies expect patrol officers to work some reasonable cases themselves, instead of simply taking the initial report and passing it on. The call volume and culture of the departments support this, so a patrol officer may well find themselves advising people as much as several times a month. I probably read someone Miranda about a half-dozen times when I was a rookie, for example.

But, you look at a much busier department, where patrol has very little opportunity to do much but run call to call... It's a different question.

And, of course, there's the times when you find yourself as a detective explaining to a patrol officer just why his advising the suspect of Miranda just screwed your case and wasted your time because now you can't talk to the guy.

Agreed. I've cleared many cases as a patrol officer and have read Miranda a number of times. However, at least where I work, if a statement from the suspect is THAT vital to your case (depending on the severity of the crime of course) it better be a detective that is doing the questioning. Losing a larceny case or a gas runoff is different from trying to get a confession out of a rape or armed robbery suspect. 99% of the time, as a patrolman where I work, a case is usually pretty solid without a statement from the suspect. Sometimes I have told the "you didnt read me my rights!" loudmouth "You have the right to shut-up...use it". Of course I try to get a statement out of every suspect to make as good a case as possible. I just present the point that the average "beat cop" mirandizing every collar is TV fantasy.

And your last point is dead on. We have detectives telling patrol officers "if you find him, detain him and CALL ME. Don't ask him ANY questions."

 

[jks9199]

Agreed. I've cleared many cases as a patrol officer and have read Miranda a number of times. However, at least where I work, if a statement from the suspect is THAT vital to your case (depending on the severity of the crime of course) it better be a detective that is doing the questioning. Losing a larceny case or a gas runoff is different from trying to get a confession out of a rape or armed robbery suspect. 99% of the time, as a patrolman where I work, a case is usually pretty solid without a statement from the suspect. Sometimes I have told the "you didnt read me my rights!" loudmouth "You have the right to shut-up...use it". Of course I try to get a statement out of every suspect to make as good a case as possible. I just present the point that the average "beat cop" mirandizing every collar is TV fantasy.

And your last point is dead on. We have detectives telling patrol officers "if you find him, detain him and CALL ME. Don't ask him ANY questions."

Every officer should know when Miranda applies and when it doesn't -- and when they should and shouldn't be advising a suspect of their rights. I've seen officers question someone at length, with the guy cuffed in the back of a cruiser -- and never bother to advise them. And I've seen others advise people of their rights that aren't even close to matching the elements... like in the suspect's own home. (Yes, it does apply in some circumstances at the suspect's home -- but as a strong general rule, you ain't in custody in your own home!)