NCJ Number
210408
Journal
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 74 Issue: 6 Dated: June 2005 Pages: 26-32
Date Published
June 2005
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This article considers the validity of a Miranda waiver when the suspect has been subjected to a two-tiered interrogation tactic in which the Miranda warnings and waiver are presented after a confession is obtained.
Abstract
Miranda rights involve the clear communication of four specific warnings to criminal suspects: the right to remain silent; any statements can be used against them; the right to an attorney; and that an attorney will be appointed to them if they cannot afford one. The United States Supreme Court has held that criminal suspects must knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive those rights when providing a confession. The current article examines the validity of Miranda waivers that have been obtained following the extraction of a confession and also explores the factors a court considers when determining whether suspects subjected to two-tiered interrogations have knowingly and voluntarily waived their rights. The case of Missouri v. Seibert is reviewed; the U.S. Supreme Court in this decision ruled that the use of two-tiered interrogation tactics was a violation of the purpose of Miranda. This decision rejected an interpretation of the Court's previous ruling in another case, Oregon v. Elstad, which appeared to promote interrogation tactics similar to the two-tiered approach. However, according to the Court, the difference between these two cases is the intentionality present in the officer's failure to provide Miranda warnings. The Court distinguished between a "simple failure to warn" and a calculated two-tiered interrogation approach. The impact of Seibert on interrogation tactics is considered, especially as it impacts pre-warning exchanges between interviewers and individuals in police custody. Endnotes