|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 13, 2008 and June 13, 2010.|
- 1 Article needs to Mention
- 2 What about Miranda and the Sixth Amendment?
- 3 Political Issue
- 4 Adopted by Other jurisdictions?
- 5 Pop-Rock group of Spain
- 6 Canadian laws not equivalent?
- 7 Important Caveat to Canadian Rights
- 8 Nonsensical sentence
- 9 Australia
- 10 You do NOT have the right
- 11 What about the rest of the World?
- 12 Do you have a reference?
- 13 Citations are a disaster
- 14 What's the normal interpretation…
- 15 Right of arestee in France
- 16 You're still allowed to TALK right?
- 17 Slightly Biased Wording in English and Welsh - Needs Referencing
- 18 Bolding
- 19 Strange phrasing
- 20 Time discrepency in length of jail time
- 21 Help me understand something
- 22 Picture?
- 23 Victim?
- 24 US Military Miranda warnings
- 25 "Worldwide view" tag
- 26 Free to leave not appropriate test for constructive arrest.
- 27 Military form 3881 link dead
- 28 Right to silence and recent court action
- 29 The Miranda warning in popular culture
- 30 Factually incorrect
- 31 Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470
- 32 attorney present during questioning
- 33 when
- 34 Source
- 35 Right to Consular Notification
- 36 Is this true?
- 37 globalise tag
- 38 Text dump
- 39 and WILL be used?
- 40 Unclear sentence
- 41 Waiver Section and other waiver references
- 42 Public safety exception
- 43 Worldwide view
- 44 Note about self-incrimination clause
- 45 Denial in understanding, which must be included.
Article needs to Mention
This article needs to mention
- the British ones changed a while ago after the abolition of the right to silent
- how come we have them in Britain anyway? no supreme court to make them up here. Morwen - Talk 19:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dickerson should be mentioned. Also, someone should mention some of the criticisms of Miranda. Most notably that very few if any other laws or rights are required to be told to someone. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Michael Sheliga
What about Miranda and the Sixth Amendment?
The Miranda right actually come from both the Fifth Amendment right not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself" and the Sixth Amendment right "to have assistance of counsel for his defense." -Thrasher
No, the Sixth Amendment right is actually protected under a separate line of cases---the so-called "Massiah" right. It overlaps a bit with the Miranda Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Unfortunately, I'm too drowsy to look up the cases right now to explain the difference. --Coolcaesar 06:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The Sixth Amendment invokes the right to counsel upon the initiation of formal judicial proceedings. While Miranda provides a "right to counsel," its rationale is seperate from Sixth Amendment. As Chief Justice Warren writes in his seminal opinion, "[t]he circumstances surrounding in-custody interrogation can operate very quickly to overbear the will of one merely aware of his privilege by his interrogators. Therefore, the right of counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today." In other words, police interrogation is so one-sided that a suspect's privileges against self-incrimination would be mariginalized in the absence of a lawyer. --whyjackfan 00:15, 03 Dec 2005.
The Basic Massiah issues are:
1. Was the statement obtained in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel? a. Has the Sixth Amendment right to counsel “attached”? b. Did state agents deliberately elicit incriminating statements from the defendant? c. Did the questioning relate to offenses that were “formally pending” against the defendant at the time the statement was made? d. Did the defendant initiate contact with the state agents? e. Did the police advise the defendant of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel before the interrogation? f. Did the defendant waive her Massiah rights before the interrogation? g. At any time during the interrogation did the defendant assert her right to counsel to have an attorney present? h. If the defendant asserted her Sixth Amendment right to counsel, did the police immediately cease all interrogation?
Some distinctions between Miranda and Massiah:
1. Miranda rules attaches only when the suspect is in custody. (whether he has been formally charged is irrelevant) 2. Massiah rule attaches only when the person has been formally charged. (custody is irrelevant) 3. Massiah is offense specific; Miranda is not. This means that Massiah rights apply only when the defendant is being questioned about offenses he has been formally charged with. Miranda applies to custodail interrogation concerning any offenses. 4.Miranda applies only to interrogation by known state-agents. Massiah applies to surreptitious questioning or monitoring of the defendant's conversations by state agents. Thus, a conversation between a undercover police officer posing as a cell mate and a suspect would implicate Massiah but not Miranda as long as the conversation related to the offenses the defendant has been formally charged with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambino23 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
To my understanding Victor M. Earle was one of the attorneys that help create the "wording" of Miranda Rights?
Article should likely note this is becoming a political issue again, as some feel it interferes with law enforcement (mainly conservatives). There is speculation that any future Supreme court justice will be asked t heir opinion on the issue during confirmation hearings. See CNN: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/confirmation.explainer/content.4.html among many others.
Adopted by Other jurisdictions?
Perhaps I'm being too picky but the statement that a requirement for Miranda-type warnings has been adopted in other jurisdictions, followed by a discussion of the requirements in England suggest that England copied the 1963 Miranda case. Of course, the right to silence in England is centurioes old and the requirement of a warning was made, certainly no later than 1912 when the Judges Rules were promulgated, saying they would strike out confessions obtained without a warning to the suspect that he was not required to speak. Should this be made clearer or is the fault mine? Avalon 09:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Pop-Rock group of Spain
Famous spanish Pop-Rock group, their first album was "Ley Miranda", we can also found the second one "Escena segunda", their third album (2005) is "Lugares que esperan". They have a lot of tops charts, like "Despierta", "¿Por qué?" or "Los restos del naufragio". http://www.mirandawarning.net
Canadian laws not equivalent?
From the article:
Thus, under Canadian law, a person charged of a crime effectively has the same protections under the law as are provided by Miranda.
From Right to silence:
The right to silence is protected under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The right to silence protects an accused from answering questions that may be incriminating from the moment of arrest up until the accused is provided with legal counsel. Outside of this period there is no right to silence, which is distinguished from, and often confused with, the US right which persists after access to councel is given.
This distinction would seem to indicate Canadians do not have all the Miranda rights, since their right to silence goes away once they have counsel.
On the other hand, I can't find any mention of the actual right to silence in the cited Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, possibly aside from the basic "life, liberty, and the security of the person" phrase... and if this is indeed the phrase that protects one's right to silence, then how does it go away once one sees a lawyer?
So which article is right? – Wisq 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Neither is correct. The right to silent is absolute in Canada. It represents the fact that a criminal suspect maintains the absolute right to choose whether or not to speak with the police. When a suspect chooses not to speak to the police, his silence cannot be used against him at trial (see R. v. Noble) nor can any inference be drawn against him.
The Right to Silence is distinct from the Right to Counsel. Just because you have contacted a lawyer, the police are not then at liberty to compel a statement from a suspect. 99% of the time, a lawyer will advise his client to exercise his right to remain silent.--Kteskey 01:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Important Caveat to Canadian Rights
While many Canadian rights sound like their American counterparts, they are subject to the Charter's limiting condition, section 1, which profoundly dilutes the strength of liberties in Canada, far beyond what the rights-moderating levels of scrutiny tests under the Fourteenth Amendment do in the United States. This explains the shocking outcome of the Singh case, explained in the article. In addition, specifically with respect to the rights against illegal search and seizure and illegally obtained testimony, the Canadian Charter subjects these rights to a further reduction under s. 24(2), which allows tainted evidence to be admitted anyway if the court feels that, after balancing the state's interest in catching criminals against the rights of the accused, the state should win. Finally, the Charter's rights-suspension clause, s. 33, allows a mere majority vote of the legislature in any one of Canada's eleven jurisdictions to suspend rights for five years, subject to endless renewals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The caution is a restriction on drawing adverse inferences applies, for example where the suspect has been denied legal advice, is You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence
makes no sense to me. Am I just misreading it or does it need rewriting?
Another nonsensical sentence:
Under the heading "TYPICAL MIRANDA WARNING":
"This warning, however, should not be confused with the family that currently resides in Ohio."
Is this sentence vandalism?
What does mean the word "verbal" mean in: "...proving that they did not "verbal" an accused"?
- At one time it was believed that police regularly adopted the practice of ascribing confessions to defendants where no confession was ever made. The practice was called "verballing". As any police member who did this was committing perjury it is difficult to know how prevalent it was. Avalon 11:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You do NOT have the right
I saw an episode of "the 4400" that showed the arrest of a couple of terrorists. It went something like (not exactly) "You are being arrested as an enemy of the state. You do NOT have the right to remain silent. You do NOT have the right to an attorney etc.". I can find nothing of this variation in this article. Is it real?
- No, that sounds like Hollywood. Most Hollywood writers are young 20-somethings straight out of college with very little life experience, which is why their writing is so bad. --Coolcaesar 06:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Does anybody know the miranda warning for terrorists? I understand that they do indeed have different rights
See United States v. Bin Laden, 132 F.Supp.2d 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). A very similar warning was found invalid. However, I do not believe the court held specifically that non-American citizens abroad must be read their Miranda rights. They just could not be told the sentence above, as they may be entitled to an attorney through a foreign government.Gowvueers (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowvueers (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Does anybody know the miranda warning for terrorists? I understand that they do indeed have different rights" This question is jest, right? "Terrorists" is not a legal class of accused. There are only three classes of people on U.S. soil as far as rights are concerned: citizens, legal non-citizens, and illegal non-citizens. And even illegal non-citizens have the right to due process of law and equal treatment under the law. And I am certain that the executive agencies that seize individuals extra-judicially and extraordinarily, do not pause to offer them a formalized statement. I imagine it is something more like being thrown into a van with a hood over your head. --joeOnSunset (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Kudos to JoeOnSunset's for that response :) Perhaps what the question referring to is the practice of taking suspected terrorists captive as enemy combatants, who therefore are subject to different rules, including punishment by military tribunals? Zujua (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Possibly. In that case, if the enemy combatants are outside US soil and noncitizens, the US treats them as combatants in war except without any Geneva Convention protections. Which means treated with zero rights, subject to killing, etc. At this point, the US treats its own citizens the same way in foreign lands, if it designates them as enemy combatants. No protections, Miranda or otherwise, are applied or considered legally required. The US has recently made assurances it will not torture those it designates with that status, but does not admit that it is required to refrain from doing so. --joeOnSunset (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Kudos to JoeOnSunset's for that response :) Perhaps what the question referring to is the practice of taking suspected terrorists captive as enemy combatants, who therefore are subject to different rules, including punishment by military tribunals? Zujua (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
What about the rest of the World?
I cannot shake the feeling that this page enforces a certain viewpoint on reader, namely, "US and other English-speaking countries ARE the territory of LAW and Civilisation, while we DON'T know ANYTHING about, like, Asia or Africa or former USSR countires". While I understand perfectly that it is up to us natives to write about our own rights, that still does not abolish the fact that most of other countries do have their equivalent of the right to remain silent and are NOT even mentioned. With maintenancce of the right being another question. Any law experts out there?
- Good luck finding any. Experts on comparative criminal law are rare. --
Coolcaesar 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I did find some stuff on the Philippines using Miranda, but it's from a Philippine blog.
- While you can claim a US bias, this page is titled, "Miranda warning" which is a US term, that was created in the US, after a US court case. Because of this it will naturally, and appropriately have a US focus. A page on "legal rights" or something broad like that should not have a US bias. This page, however, deals with a specific term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a reference?
Is there a reference for the statement "Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language"?
Evidence of inadmissibility
Marzolian (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Citations are a disaster
We need to go to a consistent citation system in this article. Right now we have a messy combination of the worst of Bluebook and California. I think we should go to Bluebook citations as footnotes. Any comments before I do this in a couple of weeks? --Coolcaesar 20:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Coolcaesar: Go for it. Famspear 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What's the normal interpretation…
…of "Anything you say can and will be used against you" (emphasis added)? Is this an example of swinging too much the other way to "make up for" people who assume the system will function in their favor, or what? I get the "can" part; it's the "will" part that seems just plain inaccurate. ("Your honor, I was nowhere near the scene of the crime." "Oh really? We're going to have to use that statement against you.") What am I missing? — Lenoxus 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "and will" is an embellishment added mostly for television. The police are in no position to make promises about the evidence a prosecutor will use to make his case. At the same time, a prosecutor would be foolish not to try and use a suspect's own confession against him. And even if the statement is ruled inadmissible, the prosecutor can still use it to impeach the defendant if he testifies.
- Having said that, it doesn't render the warnings legally defective if the officer deviates slightly from the Miranda formulation, so long as the substance of the warnings are delivered.---Axios023 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The following quote is from the text of the majority opinion in MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (emphasis added) -- Boracay Bill 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. It is only through an awareness of these consequences that there can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege. Moreover, this warning may serve to make the individual more acutely aware that he is faced with a phase of the adversary system - that he is not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interest.
- Thanks, people. I think the truth is that my confusion was not with "and will", as I had thought, but with the phrase "anything you say." It would appear that that is in fact meant as a variant of the longer phrase "anything you say as a confession". I'll consider phrasing and inserting something in the article to clarify this for people who read it the way I do — given that "anything you say" oridinairly includes absolutely everything the defendent says, including "I do swear to tell the whole truth," and "Geshundheit, Mrs. Smith." But if I'm understanding the context of how the justice phrased it, the implied meaning is more specific. Perhaps this is an example of a situation where the current quoting of something goes a little to far in cleaving to every original word… — Lenoxus 03:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Miranda applies to anything the defendant while in custody that was the a product of custodial interrogation regarless of whether the statments in inculpatory, exculpatory or neutral. The rule is not limited to confessions or admission of guilt. --Jgard5000 (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)jgard5000
- So, for instance, "Gesundheit, Mrs. Smith" could be used against a suspect as character evidence of some type, if the prosecutor deemed it necessary and there was a witness to verify the interaction. It would be up to the prosecutor to decide whether to use such a statement in the following trial. Shrillpicc100 (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Right of arestee in France
The law Perben II have reverted the right of having an attorney at the first hour of custody. Now it is possible at the 20th hour of police custody, as previously. For the right to have a translator, i think Perben II law has changed this, but i am nost sure. Previously, the fact that a translator was missing was a reason for claiming mistrial. I agree with the fact that police says "you are under arrest for ..., the custody will last 24 hours, one time renewable for a 24 hours term, you have the right to call a relative, a physican, etc...", but not with the right to remain silent. However my experience on this last subject is limited to embbeded reportages seen on TV and speaches with police men. I think a specialist of french penal procedure should check the part about "miranda" in France.
You're still allowed to TALK right?
I mean if you're feeling chatty you can discuss hobos and nacho cheese, right? They're not gonna putchu in jail for not sitting silently in the car are they? Silence is not cool.
- Umm... Hate to burst your bubble, but... Yes, they can use "unrelated" conversation as part of their evidence in legal proceedings if they have read you the Miranda warning. It's just safer not to talk on principle. Shrillpicc100 (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Slightly Biased Wording in English and Welsh - Needs Referencing
In the English and Welsh section, there is a portion of text which is biasing the reader with no reference to back up the authors views. "The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended (some say abolished)". Although innocent enough, it does bend the reader into believing that the new caution has entirely removed the right of silence. Wiki main pages are no place for political leaning, so at the very least the author should have a reference for his "neutral" standpoint. DavyBoyHayes 17:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the phrase, "some say abolished". Even if true, it is not a helpful statement without further explanation of what the right to silence is. Also cross-referenced to Right to silence in England and Wales which contains more detail about the CJAPO 1994.Dubitante (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Is "Mirandize" bolded for any particular reason? Could it not be simply identified through quote marks? Nshady16 11:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The current text says something about "You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you at interrogation time and at court."
That doesn't sound right. In California and several other states, the usual phrasing is something like this: "You have the right to have an attorney present during any questioning" (that is, neither the words "interrogation" nor "court" are used). I'm fixing the article right now. --Coolcaesar 05:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Time discrepency in length of jail time
In the Miranda v. Arizona section it says that Miranda served eleven years, but in the article referenced as "1" there is this passage, "Ten years after the ruling in the case that bears his name, Miranda was killed in a knife fight at a Phoenix bar." Ten years after the ruling he would have still been in jail, right? Patdel80 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've cleaned it up and clarified it a bit. Dureo 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Help me understand something
Why is ignorance of the law not a good legal defense. But ignorance of your rights is? It seems that a big percentage of people know the basic miranda rights. Say you have the right to remain silent. Say I am driving through one state and I get caught doing something that is legal in my state. But it would not be something obvious or common.
Not knowing your rights vs. Not knowing the law. It almost seems like the samething.
Someone care to elaborate?
- It's not so much about knowing the law, it's about making a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of your Fifth Amendment rights. The Miranda warnings were developed by the Warren Court as a prophylactic measure to ensure people knew what they were giving up before they talk to the cops. It's true that any damn fool who can watch TV knows their Miranda rights but that's totally different from making a knowing waiver of them. The "knowing" part in this sense doesn't just mean that you know the text of the Miranda rights, it means that you understand what you are giving up if you waive them. Unfortunately most people don't understand the importance of waiving their Miranda rights, which is great for cops and prosecutors (if you take criminal procedure in law school you get to read about some of the clever mind games they play on suspects to get around Miranda). But sometimes cops still screw up the process of Mirandizing completely like in the Lisa Nowak case in Florida and then huge portions of potentially incriminating evidence are suppressed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is a really interesting point, and the question is quite natural from many non-US perspectives too (I'm not American but I know you are, Coolcaesar, and that you're pro acquainted with the law). Is the idea that in waiving one's rights you're not just giving up the right to deny answers, but also the right to argue anything with the cops and be taken near seriously, if it's your perception that they are pursuing a scenario that is totally haywire and which misses some points you, the suspect, feel even you can make clear to them without a lawuer present? So that it would say "if the police, any police, is treating you like crap and trying to psych you down and showing they're already convinced that you're the guilty one, then they are just doing their business"? The idea would be that giving up those rights on arrest formalizes all subsequent interrogation into a kind of wrestling match, but one on rather unequal terms. This is no doubt how cops in other places think of it too sometimes, at least at work and in urgent cases, but I've never seen it formally stated as a legal principle. I mean, is the arrested person not even supposed to react to being put through some blatant good-cop/bad-cop routine and obviously leading questions that show the cops are convinced from the start of his, or his absent wife's/co-worker's, guilt?
- I am assuming that one is innocent but in some sense appearing tangled up and that the cops are smart enough to move within legal limits. Obviously that view of what "good police work" is about risks creating a large grey zone where the cops are able and protected to do things that are very unsavoury and faulty but which has a good chance of leading to a successful case and a conviction. This is interesting because the warning and the waiver are delivered already at the arrest, not at the point when the cops (or sometimes the sheriff?) have to define their suspicions and the support these rest on, to a prosecutor, to get a further right to keep the person in custody. Strausszek (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- A more concise answer to the question posed is this: You have to be assumed to know the law once it is legally promulgated, usually in some official gazette, since otherwise the state's authority to have its laws apply to everyone would become contingent on whether each person, on arrest, wanted to claim he hadn't read the gazette yet, and of course everyone would deny knowing it, and there would then almost always be a reasonable doubt whether he really knew it or not.
In contrast, you have to be informed specifically by the state of your Miranda right since a right gives you an option to invoke its protection or not. If you don't know about that option, you really were not empowered by that right, so it is not real. Unlike the criminal law, which the state has a right to apply to everyone, your personal rights of self-protection against the state are yours to invoke or not, as you choose, so you have to be informed of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Something like this? http://www.chiefsupply.com/images/products/600/MWC.jpg —Micahbrwn (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
US Military Miranda warnings
"Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 31 provides for the right against self-incrimination. Interrogation subjects under Army jurisdiction must first be given Department of the Army Form 3881(PDF), which informs them of the charges and their rights, and sign it. The United States Navy and United States Marine Corps require that all arrested personnel be read the "rights of the accused" and must sign a form waiving those rights if they so desire, a verbal waiver is not sufficient."
When I was being trained as an US Army MP, I remember being instructed that the only element needed to trigger the need for the 31B warning of a military member was interrogartion, as custody was always present by simply being in the military. Can anyone else confirm this? Dexta32084 (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
"Worldwide view" tag
I'm sorry, what on earth is this tag doing on this page? How can there be a "worldwide view" of a legal term specific to the USA? If the person who posted the tag feels there should be a a generalised "arrest and detention rights" page well that's fair enough, and the Miranda Warning should certainly link there, but it is nonsensical to expect a worldwide view for this term. And no, I'm not American either.
In all honesty, the rest of the information about detainee rights should be moved to a seperate article, as they are not related to "Miranda Rights" in any specific sense. They should be a in generalised page about detainee rights. Manning (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Just traced it. It's this edit by anon IP 184.108.40.206 over a month ago.
- What an idiot! I'm countermanding it now. Let's see if that anon clown wants to come back and defend his/her ridiculous position. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Free to leave not appropriate test for constructive arrest.
"A custodial situation is one in which the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained (judged by the "free to leave" test), even if he is not under arrest." the determination of whether a person is under constructive (rather than actual arrest) is whether he has been subjected to the restraints associated with formal arrest. That is the circumstances must be such as to cause a person to reasonbly beleive he was under arrest. --Jgard5000 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)jgard5000 A person who is being detained is not free to leave but the investigating officer is not under any duty to advise the detainee of his Miranda rights before questioning the person. --Jgard5000 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)jgard5000
Right to silence and recent court action
Could someone explain the recent news story about the Miranda warning?  In particular I quote:
- For example, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that most police start off Miranda rights by saying "You have the right to remain silent." But, Alito said, what happens if someone begins talking to the police and then decides that they want to be silent?
- "Once you break your silence, there is nothing in there that says you have the right to resume your silence," Alito said.
- "We could write that down. It could be the next case," Justice Anthony Kennedy said to laughter.
Now by comparison the right to silence article suggests that in fact people don't have the right to become silent under the Raffel standard. Yet there it sounds like the Supreme Court is making fun of people for not knowing that that isn't true? I have to admit, I myself was under the impression that we were still under the McCarthy Era HUAC status quo where they could pull someone in front of Congress and call him a Communist on national television and if he said three words "that's a lie" he would go to jail for five years unless he then continued to follow up by naming everyone he'd ever talked to and answering any other question. Is that really not true? Wnt (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Figured it out. User:Oxtoby made those asinine edits to right to silence a few months ago. Raffel has been impliedly overruled. See footnote 9 in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976). Either Oxtoby isn't a lawyer or he/she is not a very good one.
- Any lawyer who can pass the bar exam in a jurisdiction where it actually means something (as opposed to places like North Dakota where any idiot who can sign his name can pass) knows that it's really dangerous to rely on pre-Warren Court criminal procedure cases because of the dramatic transformation of American constitutional law brought about by the Warren Court! Nearly all the old cases from the 1920s like Raffel have been overruled.
- I think what Alito was getting at is that you do have the right to resume your silence and Miranda doesn't make that clear. The prosecution cannot use the fact that you subsequently changed your mind and shut up against you, e.g., by saying that "Oh, look, he realized he was so guilty, so he shut up." But they can enter into evidence the words or information or evidence you volunteered (assuming you were Mirandized and waived your Miranda rights) before you shut up. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The Miranda warning in popular culture
Something should be added about the ubiquity of this warning in US police films and tv crime series. Outside of the US, that's the prime reason so many people are familiar with it: we've all seen guys getting arrested and having their rights read to them. I've even heard that the pilot episode of Kojak ("The Marcus-Nelson murders") was built on the case that originally led to the demand to state the Miranda rights to an arrestee by the US Supreme Court. 10:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
"Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda warning—although if the police do change their mind and decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must then be given."
Especially in the wake of the debate over Mirandizing the suspect in the failed NY bombing, it's important to correct this. The police are not constitutionally required to Mirandize an arrested suspect; it is constitutional to arrest, never Mirandize, and then interrogate a suspect. Whatis unconstitutional is the general admissibility of any of the suspect's statements in a subsequent prosecution. The police only had to Mirandize him if they wanted to use his interrogation statements in court. But if they wanted to interrogate him for other reasons - for example, to locate other co-conspirators - and not use his statements in court (perhaps because there was plenty of physical evidence), then they are NOT constitutionally required to Mirandize him. The quoted material needs to be corrected. See Chavez v. Martinez, 438 U.S. 760 (2003). . See, e.g., Chavez v. Martinez, 542 U.S. 630 (2004); http://volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/. --Dd8yf (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're correct; I've changed the passage. (Nevertheless, except under the most exceptional circumstances, they'd be crazy to not Mirandize a suspect promptly.) I'll remove the factual inaccuracy tag. TheFeds 06:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
You've made a good point, and another one is that a suspect only needs to be Mirandized if the charge is a felony.
Misdemeanors don't require the Miranda process.
Another is that cops often talk to people because they may be witnesses or have knowledge that advances an investigation. If the cop has that state of mind he doesn't need to Mirandize,
but sometimes, the conversation leads the cop to think the person may be guilty of a crime, and at that point he is suppose to Mirandize.
Altho, who but the cop can tell when that insight occurred?
In the section on "Miranda Rights" there is a passage talking about the verb "Mirandize". It is written as "As a result, American English developed the verb Mirandize, meaning "read the Miranda warning to" a suspect (when the suspect is arrested)." Considering the discussion of factually incorrect, I think the whole portion within parentheses need to be deleted, as Miranda has nothing to do with Arrest, only with interrogation. IN fact, the whole idea of having to be read your rights "upon arrest" is a false urban myth created by Hollywood and TV incorrectly portraying the act of being "read your rights" Cg23sailor (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470
The newly added phrase "In a surprising turn of events..." is poorly worded; surprising to whom? It gives the appearance of one-sided POV. Furthermore, there is no source for the case in question, Berghuis v. Thompkins.theprez98 (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
attorney present during questioning
I'm confused. The supreme court ruling quoted in the article says the suspect must be informed of his/her rights, which are listed. The part about the attorney specifically mentions the fact that you have the right to have your attorney present during questioning. But in the "typical usage" section, that part is left out.
Does this mean the article here has a mistake in it and the "typical usage" section needs to be fixed? Or does it accurately reflect the fact that states typically fail to advise suspects of this particular right despite the fact that the supreme court ruling specifies it? Sbunny8 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- HOLLAND, JESSE J. (2 August 2010). "High court trims Miranda warning rights bit by bit". Associated Press (The Associated Press). Retrieved 2 August 2010.
Right to Consular Notification
The right of Consular Notification falls under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which is a treaty ratified by the Senate and therefore carries the same force of the law as the Constitution of the United States (as stated in the Supremacy Clause). It has nothing to do with Miranda other than it is sometimes read along with the Miranda Rights. As one can see from the UN page on the treaty, it has had significant international consideration in both domestic and international courts.
The Supreme Court has held that the Right to Consular Notification is not a basis for the exclusion of evidence. See Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon. When the police fail to read the Miranda Warnings to the accused, the subsequent statements can be suppressed. Such is not the case when police fail to inform the accused of the Right to Consular Notification. The US has objected to review in the International Court of Justice, thereby eliminating any possibility of enforcing this right in the United States outside of an American court. See also Medellín v. Texas.
It is somewhat of a misnomer to place Consular Notification in a Miranda Warnings article because Miranda and its progeny do not require disclosure of the Right of Consular Notification. Furthermore, the law does not require that they be read. Police Department policy may dictate that it be read, but it cannot be the basis for the supression of evidence, a confession, or a conviction. I'm not sure what should be changed here, but at the very least it should be made clear that Miranda and its progeny do not require a reading of the Right to Consular Notification. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this true?
why is this called "Miranda rights" when its for other countries. Perhaps something like "criminal legal right" is better with Miranda being a redirect to Miranda v. ArizonaLihaas (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
and WILL be used?
What's the use of "will" in "can and will be used"? "Can" is a warning. "Will" sounds to me (non-native English speaker) like a guarantee or a promise. If I get arrested and tell the officer that I do like a cigarette, in what way will he be using that against me? May be "will" in this case means that if I'd say something incriminating the officer is obliged to tell that in court? Does "can and will" just mean "can, are you listening? it really can"? Joepnl (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It's realy funny. What is the meaning of "anything can and will be used against [the defendant] in a court of law"? Obviously, it's not true: If the suspect says "bla bla bla", would it be used against him in some way in a court of law? Anything said can be used, but not will be used necessarily! In all the other countries, the warning isn't contain this duplication. אביתרג (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC).
As a native speaker of English and a U.S. citizen, I too have always found that "will" to be peculiar if not absurd. I have yet to hear an explanation for it. -- Paul Richter (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- The actual Miranda verbiage used varies so much from jurisdiction to jurisdiction that "will" might not actually be used--even if it is on Law & Order. However, I would consider it appropriate if it was used, for this reason: the very act of speaking to the police, no matter what you say, forecloses a number of defenses and entails risks and liabilities too complex to explain at the moment. This is absolutely true. For example, by waiving your Miranda rights, police are enabled to testify about your conversation with them--this entails the liability that their testimony will diverge from your recollection of what you said, or even diverge from what you actually said. In Florida, DUI arrest forms have pre-printed checkboxes for suspect statements. I have seen just a line drawn straight down through these boxes ("...said he/she was feeling intoxicated.... said he/said was drinking in four hours prior, etc.") They cannot admit that if you don't waive Miranda. (Am I implying that they may check those boxes even though you said no such thing? Golly.) The warning might say, "Waiving your Miranda rights is a bad decision: even if you talk to us, we might misinterpret what you say, or even lie about it, and you can be sure that no matter what, the Prosectuor will find a way to use your waiver to their advantage." Any Defense attorney will tell you this is the case. So, from a practical perspective, I never found "and will" to be too terribly petulant. --joeOnSunset (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I honestly do not understand the following bold line found in the "Typical usage" section.
Some jurisdictions provide the right of a juvenile to remain silent if their parent or guardian is not present.
Even though this sentence may be somewhat ambiguous to some laypersons, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved of it as an accurate description of the procedure in those states. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (upholding use of sentence by Hammond, Indiana police).
- The article has been heavily vandalized in recent months and is a gigantic mess. There was previously a key quote there which was deleted by a vandal. I'll have to trace the article history when I have the time and revert back to a version that makes sense. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Waiver Section and other waiver references
It would appear, based on Berghuis v. Thompkins, that the thrust of the entire Waiver Section is incorrect. In addition there are several references throughout the article to this waiver that are outdated based on the 2010 ruling. I think, although I recognize the problem, there are more qualified folks to fix the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loumaag (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Public safety exception
Lots of discussion about the public safety exception during the Boston Marathon case: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/a-debate-over-delaying-suspects-miranda-rights.html Debate Over Delaying of Miranda Warning By CHARLIE SAVAGE Published: April 20, 2013 --Nbauman (talk) 19:29, 20
Here are some more good articles:
April 2013 (UTC) http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/04/what-happened-to-the-miranda-warning-in-boston.html April 21, 2013 What Happened to the Miranda Warning in Boston? Posted by Amy Davidson
Much-quoted article from Slate:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights? When the law gets bent out of shape for him, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us. By Emily Bazelon|Posted Friday, April 19, 2013, at 11:29 PM --Nbauman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion at "Worldwide view" tag above ground to a halt, but this needs to be addressed. The term "Miranda warning" is only relevant in the USA, yet this article contains extensive information on equivalent warnings elsewhere (much of which overlaps with Right to silence). This represents a biased view towards the USA, as it essentially makes this article about "right to silence warnings" or "police interrogation warnings" but applies an American term as the universal title. I suggest that either:
- This article be pared back to be about only Miranda rights in the USA, and other information about similar warnings in other jurisdictions moved elsewhere as appropriate; or
- This article be renamed with a jurisdiction-neutral term, the lead be re-worked to reflect a worldwide view, and the USA be dealt with in one specific section. Miranda warning can be forked into its own article if necessary or otherwise redirect here.
Note about self-incrimination clause
- There is no "self-incrimination" clause. The right is against being forced to be a witness against yourself. This involves the questions asked and who's asking the questions. It is not about the answers. "Self-Incrimination" implies that you can only claim the right if you're guilty.
This was in response to this text:
- The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation. Miranda right to counsel and right to remain silent are derived from the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.
I reverted but noting here in case they have a legitimate point. Dcoetzee 04:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
No, "self-incrimination" does not imply that you can claim the right only if you are guilty. Completely wrong.
You have to understand what an incriminating statement is. Any statement that increases the danger or chance that you will be (A) accused, (B) charged, or (C) prosecuted is a "incriminating" statement under the law (at least, under U.S. law). Can a completely innocent person who is telling the truth be falsely accused? Absolutely. Can a completely innocent person who is telling the truth be falsely charged? Yes. Can a completely innocent person who is telling the truth be unjustly prosecuted? You bet. Even a truthful statement by a completely innocent person can be incriminating. Famspear (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Denial in understanding, which must be included.
´do you understand these rights as stated to you´
Should have be/have a prewarning:
You have the right to state No to ´do you understand these rights as stated to you´. In the case that you state no, you will still be taken into custody, however, your representative/ a defense attorney must be informed & assigned immediately to be present in any formal questioning due your statement of pertinent non-emancipation under these circumstances. <pause> Do you understand these rights as stated to you?
That instance and reasoning thereoff is quite simple. Oscam´s Razor. Are there any lawyers/judges whom do not have at least a university education, AND, is this education equitative to an experience/knowledge/intellectual capacity of at least between an IQ of 115 to 120.
That being so, then for what pertains to law, both civil & penal, all are considered un-emancipated unless they have at least this level of capacitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)