NCJ Number
97486
Journal
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 54 Issue: 1 Dated: (January 1985) Pages: 23-31
Date Published
1985
Length
9 pages
Annotation
Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the Miranda rule have interpreted it to apply only in custodial interrogation situations. Consequently, broad warning and waiver policies adopted by police in the late 1960's and early 1970's are not necessary.
Abstract
Although broad warning and waiver policies are easy to understand and guarantee that a confession cannot be suppressed, they also hamper legitimate investigative efforts. Recent Court rulings require officers comply with Miranda before questioning a suspect in Federal or State custody or in the custody of a foreign government. A Miranda warning need not be given in custodial interrogations where an emergency exists and the officer's questions are prompted by concern for the safety of other officers or the public. As a general rule, Miranda rights should not be given before an officer questions a suspect who is being investigatively detained unless the detention is prolonged or other coercive factors are present. If officers question a suspect with the specific intent of making an arrest, they should comply with Miranda at the outset of the interview. In more ambiguous circumstances, the officers should inform the suspect that he or she is not under arrest and is free to terminate the interview at any time, thus negating the need for the warning and waiver. Finally, agencies should include a statement in their policy advising officers that they should give a warning and obtain a waiver before attempting to interview a defendant about a crime for which he or she has been formally charged, regardless of whether the subject is in custody. This covers cases where only the sixth amendment right to counsel is at issue. The paper includes 22 footnotes.