Miranda Warnings In Criminal Investigations

Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law.

Along with the order in which the police investigate, interrogate and read suspects their rights, officers must be sure that the suspect understands his or her rights. If a suspect lacks fluent use of the English language, an interpreter in the native language is appropriate. Two questions follow the four statement Miranda Rights, these questions are:

Is a person’s giving of consent to search an inculpatory or exculpatory statement? Should a person in custody be given Miranda warnings before being asked for consent to search? Why must police give elaborate warnings before custodial interrogation but no warnings

The employer has the right to ask employees questions that are job-related. Therefore, the employees are be questioned by the government which entitles the employee to the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment declares that the government cannot make a person be a witness against themselves. The Fourteenth Amendment offers an equal protection clause for all government employees which makes the Fifth Amendment applicable. An employee may enact their Garrity rights during an investigatory meeting where the employer asks questions about allegations of the employee’s wrong doing. If the employee faces severe penalties such as dismissal or termination they may feel compelled to answer the questions. If the employee is compelled to answer questions, then the Garrity rights become relevant.

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise

Our court system has imposed a few restrictions as to what LEOs can do to gain incriminating type statements from criminal suspects without violating their rights. Our Sixth Amendment has restrictions in place that holds officers responsible for how they obtain confessions from suspects. One example of that is the case of “Massiah v. United States (1964), where the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel in all formal criminal proceedings was violated when the government agents deliberately elicits incriminating responses from a person” (“Interrogations and Confessions”, n.d., p.

“(a) Before he is interrogated, a person suspected of a criminal offense must be warned of his constitutional rights to silence and counsel; (b) counsel, including appointed counsel if necessary, must be made available during interrogation; and (c) the suspect may waive both counsel and his right to remain silent by an explicit statement to that effect after warning.” (Elsen, S. H., & Rosett, A.1967, p.646)

had the right to maintain silence and “right to have an attorney present during the interrogation”.

It is crucial that administrators develop safeguards to ensure that internal investigations are conducted fairly and ethically, demonstrating the best interest of both the officer and its employers. This paper discusses the Police Officer Bill of Rights created by a subcommittee created by the Legislative Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the importance of it being implemented and standardized across the United States.

If an officer fails to read the defendant his or her rights before obtaining a confession, then the confession could be inadmissible based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession. For instance, if Miranda were applicable to the situation then the confession would be inadmissible if the defendant’s rights were not read. Subsequently, the defendant’s Miranda warnings must be issued when they are taken into custody, the defendant’s statements are the result of an interrogation, and there is a law enforcement officer present (Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Academy, 2015). Additionally, interrogations include words or actions by law enforcement officers that can reasonably be expected to induce incriminating

The court must deny a confession if police officers fail to inform the defendant of their Miranda rights, and promise immunity to the defendant to coerce a confession. Quartararo, 715 F.Supp at 457, 459-61. In Quartararo, Petitioner Quartararo, a fifteen-year-old boy, confessed that he and his brother murdered thirteen-year-old boy, John Pius. See id. at 454-55. After being apprehended with his friend Ryan, id. at 453, the officers did not read Quartararo his Miranda warnings until four hours into interrogating, id. at 458.

“Police, in most jurisdictions, have a special shield against interrogation known as the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights” (Levine,2016). Consequently, the Garrity Rule is set in place to protect police officers accused of violating agency policies while performing their job duties thereof. Nevertheless, this rule is set up to shield police officers in need when they may have done any wrong doing or have been accused of doing so. “Equivalent of Miranda warnings whenever we are dealing with a criminal investigation” (Doerner,2016). Conversely, if enquiring for assumed criminal behavior, the officer has the right to utilize the Miranda rights and refer with his/her attorney. Nevertheless, if the questioning from the supervisor is administrative,

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.

The United States Constitution protects for suspects right against compelled self-incrimination during a police interrogation, regardless of whether they are charged with a federal or state crime. In other words, he or she cannot be enforced to confess to an offense or any part of an offense. Also, the state constitution may protect suspects, but regardless of what protections the state constitution provides, the police must, at least, satisfy the relevant federal tests. Therefore, before they are interrogated, the police must always give them their “Miranda warnings.”