Application of the Miranda Rights Law

Introduction

The Miranda law was created by the courts in Miranda .v. Arizona to protect a criminal person’s fifth and sixth constitutional amendments right. In essence, the Fifth Amendment offers individuals the right not to incriminate themselves. The sixth amendment on the other hand offers an individual the right to counsel or to an attorney. Without this important step by the law enforcement then the evidence produced before the court is considered inadmissible before the court. This essentially means that any statement given by an arrested individual before their Miranda rights are read to them is excluded before the court.

Summery of facts

While executing a valid search warrant, four police officers stormed into the apartment of a suspected drug trafficker with a history of illegal firearm possession. They handcuffed the suspect and started searching the premise after explaining to him the reason for their coming. The officers ask the suspect some questions that give them clues as to where they could find incriminating evidence. They later read him his Miranda rights after two hours of the search.

The suspects’ defense attorney has made an application to strike out the evidence uncovered during the search that resulted from the question that the officers asked before reading the suspect his Miranda rights.  

Miranda rights

The Miranda rights are a set of factual details stated to an arrested individual that satisfy the protection of those persons fifth and sixth amendments. This facts are the "the right to remain silent, the right to legal counsel, and the right to be told that anything he/she says can be used in court against". The court in the Miranda case insisted that,

“The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court. He must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.”

Under the law, custodial interrogations should always trigger the need for Miranda warnings. If the suspect has been taken into custody or restricted in any way, then any question asked by the police amount to ‘custodial questioning’ (California v. Beheler 463 U.S. 1121 (1983)). The court of appeal went further and explained that ‘the ultimate inquiry is merely whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.’ In the accused, case the police had already handcuffed him before the proceeded to ask him questions.

When determining whether an individual is under custody or not, the law has used the Thompson v. Keohane , (94-6615), 516 U.S. 99 (1996) case. In this case, the court set out two tests to prove whether an individual is in custody or not. The court stated that the court must determine the circumstances surrounding the interrogation (custody type treatment, handcuffing, locking in a cell, etc.) and if a reasonable person would have felt not at liberty to end the interrogation and leave. If these two facts are established then it is the duty of the police to read the suspect his Miranda rights before any form of interrogation.

When it comes to public safety, the law exempts the application of the Miranda law (US v. Lackey, 334 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir., 2003)). If the officer determines that the immediate public is in danger, then, any resultant evidence is admissible in court. In New York v. Quarles, 467 US 649 (1984) the court held that Police officers can and will distinguish almost instinctively between questions necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect.

During the search, the suspect made a jest of whether he should call his ‘cousin Vinny the lawyer’. Under the law, a suspect has to waive his right to the sixth amendment properly for it to be considered valid. In Davis v. United States 512 US 452 (1994) the court quoted the Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 484–485 case and stated that a suspect who has already been read for their Miranda rights can waive those rights in a proper manner at any time. In our case however, the suspect made a joke about the lawyer. On the other hand, the officers had not yet read him his rights for him to waiver them.

The defense has made an application to withdraw evidence comprising of pistol and cocaine found by the police during the search. The police were exercising a very valid search warrant for this suspect was an arms dealer. It can however be urged that that public safety was at stake because the police were searching for weapons. The courts in US v. Ferguson, 11-3806-cr (2nd Cir. 2012) held that ‘because officers had an objectively reasonable need to protect the public from the realistic possibility that Ferguson had recently left a gun in a public place, they could act under the public safety exception when questioning Ferguson an hour or more after his arrest.’ The court also refused to relinquish the statement made by Ferguson that helped the police in recovering the gun.  

Conclusion

Based on case law provided then it would seem that the officers delay in reading the suspect his Miranda rights before asking him questions was wrong. It should also be considered that the suspect was in custody. However, the police recovered a weapon because of the questioning. This means that the law can admit the pistol as evidence because it was in a public place and posed a threat to the public. However, the cocaine was found with the admission of the suspect without the reciting of the Miranda law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Ferdico, J. N., Fradella, H. F., & Totten, C. D. (2013). Criminal procedure for the criminal justice professional. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Prentzas, G. S. (2006). Miranda rights: Protecting the rights of the accused. New York, NY: Rosen Pub. Group.

Ruschmann, P. (2007). Miranda rights. New York: Chelsea House.

Siegel, L. J. (2010). Introduction to criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.