What Folks Get Wrong About Miranda Warnings

Police dramas like Law & Order make Miranda warnings seem clear cut and simple. At Joseph, Hollander, & Craft, we know that in reality they are anything but. When a detainee is read their Miranda rights, how they are interrogated, certain statements they make pre-Miranda and more all can radically influence the outcome of a case.

What Is the Miranda Warning?

The Miranda warning is:

1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to an attorney.
4. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided to you.
5. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?

Why Is It Called “Miranda Rights”?

The basis for Miranda warnings is found in the U.S. Constitution, specifically in the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendments. However, many people do not realize that the procedural rule requiring police to expressly advise arrestees of their rights did not apply until a series of landmark 1960s Supreme Court cases, culminating in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

In the 1963 case Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Clarence Earl Gideon, a man convicted in Florida criminal court for felony breaking and entering. The Supreme Court overturned Gideon’s conviction on the basis that he had not received a fair trial because he could not afford a lawyer. This case established that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to counsel for those accused of a crime.

After Gideon came Escobedo v. Illinois (1964). This 5-4 decision built upon Gideon by affirming that suspects have the right to counsel during police interrogations, even before being formally charged with a crime. Danny Escobedo, the petitioner in this case, was charged with first-degree murder after confessing in Spanish to a Spanish-speaking officer that he had knowledge of the murder of his brother-in-law. This admission came after 14 hours of questioning and being denied access to his lawyer.

Finally, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) interpreted the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to mean that individuals have protections against self-incrimination like the right to remain silent when being questioned by the police. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court, building upon Escobedo: “That case was but an explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution — that ‘No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,’ and that ‘the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel’ — rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official overbearing.”

What the Law Says About When You Must Be Read a Miranda Warning

Anyone who is being held for “custodial interrogation” by the police must first be read their Miranda rights. The concept of “custodial interrogation” is a nuanced one. Say you have been pulled over at a traffic stop. You are not yet physically restrained or handcuffed, but your freedom is restricted by the officer’s presence and the fact that they are armed. At what point during questioning does an officer need to read you your Miranda rights? Consider the following:

• In Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), the United States Supreme Court found that once a traffic stop escalates and the person is no longer free to leave, it can be considered custodial.
• In Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), the United States Supreme Court found that certain actions by police that are designed to elicit an incriminating response count as interrogation – even if they are not direct questions. Examples might be subjecting the detainee to a reverse lineup, telling them to “tell the truth” or that it’s alright to discuss the case, or telling a suspect that cooperation will be noted by the prosecutor. All of these actions and more can create a “functional equivalent” of interrogation. In which case, a suspect must be read their Miranda rights prior to these techniques.

A custodial interrogation may begin prior to being formally booked for a crime. Because of this, you may be owed Miranda rights prior to being handcuffed or put into the back of a police car.

Miranda rights are established by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of to the U.S. Constitution and applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, you should be read Miranda rights when being detained by state or local police in Kansas or Missouri just as you should be read Miranda rights when being detained by federal law enforcement. As criminal defense attorneys in Overland Park, we may ask when you were read your rights if any of the following factors were present:

• Was the officer armed?
• How many officers were present?
• Who initiated the interaction? Did you voluntarily begin speaking to the officer in question?
• Were you answering questions in the police station or in your own home or vehicle?
• Were you subjected to the use of force?
• Were you threatened with the use of force?
• Were you physically restrained in any way?
• How long were you questioned for?
• Were you deprived of food or water by officers for an extended period of time?
• Did the interrogation take place late at night, early in the morning, or at any other unconventional hour?

Note: It is legal in all 50 states including Kansas and Missouri for a police officer to lie to you during an interrogation; doing so will not be considered coercive or enough to contribute to a finding that you were in custody.

Custodial Interrogation Methods May Differ for Minors

Youth interrogation procedures vary by state, but minors must be given the same Miranda warning in a language that they can understand. Additionally, a good faith effort must be made to contact a juvenile’s parents or guardian before questioning can begin, according to federal guidelines.

In Kansas, when a juvenile is less than 14 years of age, no admission or confession resulting from interrogation while in custody or under arrest may be admitted into evidence unless the confession or admission was made following a consultation between the juvenile’s parent or attorney as to whether the juvenile will waive the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination. After an attorney has been appointed for a minor, the parents in question may not waive their child’s rights.

In Missouri, minor children taken into custody must be advised of their rights orally and in writing prior to questioning. Under Chapter 211, Title XII of the Public Health and Welfare, these rights are:

1. That the child has the right to remain silent;
2. That any statement the child does make to anyone can be and may be used against the child in subsequent juvenile court proceedings;
3. That the child has a right to have a parent, guardian or custodian present during questioning;
4. That the child has a right to consult with an attorney and that one will be appointed and paid for him if he cannot afford one;
5. That the child has the right to stop talking at any time; and
6. That any statement the child does make to law enforcement can be and may be used against the child if the child is transferred to a court of general jurisdiction to be prosecuted under the general law.

Miranda Rights Do Not Protect You if You Volunteer Information

Miranda rights are supposed to remind you that you cannot be penalized for choosing to remain silent or asking for an attorney. However, they do nothing if you volunteer information. The right against self-incrimination means that you are not required to act as a witness against yourself. If you choose to provide information despite having the right to remain silent, then, as the warnings state, that information can and will be used against you.

For this reason, contact an attorney at once if you are detained. Make a clear and definitive request for an attorney; say “I want to speak to my lawyer” or “I will not answer any questions without a lawyer present.”

You Can Still Face Charges Even If You Were Not Read Your Rights

Even if you were not read your Miranda rights, you may still be booked and face charges. You may still need to move through the justice system before your Miranda rights lawyer can utilize the exclusionary rule in trial to petition to remove evidence that was obtained illegally.

In general, a custodial confession given without a prior Miranda warning is not admissible in court. However, there are exceptions that apply. They are:

1. Impeachment: If what you say pre-Miranda later contradicts your defense, these prior admissions may be used to undermine your credibility. For instance, in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971), the defendant was arrested for selling heroin to an undercover police officer. Pre-Miranda, Harris told the officers that he had sold them heroin on their request. During his defense, he alleged that he never made the sale. While his initial statement was considered inadmissible as a confession pre-Miranda, it was still legally used against him to show he had changed his story.
2. Sentencing: Statements made pre-Miranda can still be used to influence sentencing decisions.
3. Public Safety: An officer may question a detainee about possession of a weapon without reading them their Miranda rights if they are acting to prevent or respond to a threat to public safety. The discovery of a weapon in this case can be used against you in trial, despite the Miranda violation. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).
4. Physical evidence: Physical evidence discovered in questioning that violates Miranda may still be considered admissible. The “fruits of a poisonous tree” doctrine does not necessarily apply to technical Miranda violations, according to United States v. Patane, 542 U.S.630 (2004).

Note: The case of Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. 134 (2022), made clear that a Miranda violation does not constitute the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution that is enforceable via a civil action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

How Our Overland Park Criminal Defense Attorneys Can Help

There is much more nuance to Miranda warnings than there might appear to the casual viewer of police dramas. Our Overland Park criminal defense attorneys can cut through the confusion and advocate on your behalf. The attorneys at Joseph, Hollander & Craft are some of the top-rated criminal defense lawyers in the region. Our criminal defense lawyers in Overland Park handle municipal, state, and federal cases and appeals. Our attorneys been recognized for their outstanding guidance and legal knowledge, and our firm ranks highly in peer-reviewed and prestigious directories such as the Martindale-Hubbell® Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Best Lawyers®, and Thomson Reuters’ Super Lawyers®.

Were Your Rights Violated? Call Our Overland Park Defense Attorneys

When you are facing criminal charges, you need the best by your side. Contact us today and take the first steps towards protecting your reputation and your future with Joseph, Hollander & Craft. We maintain offices in Kansas City, MO as well as Overland Park, Wichita, Lawrence, and Topeka, KS.