Police Interrogation: The Self-Incrimination Clause Flashcards Preview

Criminal Procedure > Police Interrogation: The Self-Incrimination Clause > Flashcards

Flashcards in Police Interrogation: The Self-Incrimination Clause Deck (8)
Loading flashcards...

Miranda v. Arizona

While in custody, M signed written confession after being questioned by police officers who did not advise M he had a right to have an attorney present. For Miranda to apply need custodial interrogation. Custody: detained in a way in which a reasonable person would not feel able to leave. Interrogation: when police ask either direct or indirect questions or otherwise make statements or do things that may elicit a response. 1) The right to remain silent, anything they say will be held against them as evidence 2) The right to an attorney during questioning 3) If not able to afford an attorney, the state will provide one. Assertion of rights is valid only if speak up and articulate assertion to those interrogating.


NY v. Quarles

Q was arrested in supermarket where he discarded a gun allegedly used to commit a recent crime and responded to police questions regarding location of weapon without being advised of Miranda rights. Public safety exception: In event police believe that administration of rights in these circumstances would decrease likelihood that suspect apprehended would disclose info that would protect public, then police excused from giving Miranda


Oregon v. Elstad

E's conviction for burglary was reversed because his signed confession, although voluntary, was rendered inadmissible by prior confession made in response to police questioning without benefit of Miranda warnings. Absent evidence of coercion by police in the hoe, in respect to failure to administer Miranda warning in first place, does not presume Miranda warnings cannot be effective second time around in respect to second statement. First statement will always be inadmissible, second statement will be admissible if Miranda is effective


Missouri v. Seibert

Police adopted protocol for custodial interrogation that called for giving no warnings of rights to silence and counsel until interrogation has produced a confession, after which police would provide Miranda warnings and further interrogate suspect so he would repeat earlier confession. Midstream recitation of Miranda warnings after interrogation elicits an unwarned confession does not effectively comply with Miranda's constitutional requirements, and a confession repeated after such warning is inadmissible.


Miranda Custody

Court must focus on how a reasonable mean in suspect's situation would have understood his situation


Miranda Interrogation

For purposes of Miranda, an interrogation occurs when police either expressly question a suspect in custody or engage in actions or dialogue that police should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from suspect. Includes direct or indirect questions or what court calls functional equivalent (words or conduct police would reasonably know would elicit an incriminating response)


North Carolina v. Butler

After B was arrested and given his Miranda warnings, he refused to sign a written waiver of rights but agreed to speak with FBI agents. Waiver may be inferred by words or conduct of suspect, no express statement of waiver necessary.


Edwards v. Arizona

E invoked his right to counsel and his right to remain silent on night of his arrest, on following day, while still incarcerated and without counsel, police repeated Miranda warnings and re-questioned Edwards, who made incriminating statements. Once accused has invoked right to counsel, police must cease all questioning irrespective of the subject matter unless attorney is present if they seek to question later, unless suspect initiates conversation or communication with police